The ". $" notation (was: Re: how useful are collecting lists?)
Alan Manuel Gloria
(18 Mar 2013 01:26 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
Shiro Kawai
(18 Mar 2013 02:42 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
Alan Manuel Gloria
(18 Mar 2013 02:44 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
Shiro Kawai
(18 Mar 2013 04:45 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
David A. Wheeler
(18 Mar 2013 16:25 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
Alan Manuel Gloria
(19 Mar 2013 00:17 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
David A. Wheeler
(19 Mar 2013 03:28 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation
Alan Manuel Gloria
(19 Mar 2013 05:52 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation David A. Wheeler (19 Mar 2013 10:44 UTC)
|
Handling scomments after "."
David A. Wheeler
(19 Mar 2013 03:41 UTC)
|
Re: Handling scomments after "."
David A. Wheeler
(19 Mar 2013 04:12 UTC)
|
Re: The ". $" notation (was: Re: how useful are collecting lists?)
David A. Wheeler
(18 Mar 2013 03:09 UTC)
|
Alan Manuel Gloria: > Err mostly I was pointing out that this is actually an inconsistency - > SUBLIST normally does not wrap a single datum after it in an extra > layer of parens, while "." essentially removes an extra layer of > parens. So maybe ". $" notation isn't as good as I thought. I'd be happy to get rid of it. It doesn't add any real capabilities to the notation, and it's nice to have a warning-free grammar. So... if someone *wants* ". $" notation, please speak up ASAP. Otherwise, I'll just remove it soon. But this expedition *did* end up pointing out a grammar problem, namely, that we weren't supporting scomments after period. So it was still worthwhile. --- David A. Wheeler