Guido, can we update the standard to reflect the simple continuation rule defined by John below?
Note that according to the standard as it is currently defined, the second line in my example would be interpreted as a header, and not as a note. This is very illogical and confusing. We need to get rid of such confusion. Irwin Oppenheim On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, John Chambers wrote: I. Oppenheim writes: | | And what about: | | A B C D\ | E:| > The trailing \ can be handled in the input routine, > before any parsing is done, and the rest of the code > then just sees: > A B C D E:| > > With this rule, it's clear that the first example doesn't contain an > E: line at all (though this sentence does ;-). The "E:" isn't at the > start of a line, from the viewpoint of anything but the input > routine, because it's a continuation of the previous line. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
