Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 08:46:56 +0000
From: Austin Group Bug Tracker <nore...@msnkbrown.net>
Message-ID: <cfdb34b6b4f30a052f86b4167ae7c...@austingroupbugs.net>
That is, really from Geoff Clare:
| Personally I don't see that there is a problem with the current wording.
It is almost OK, and if you consider the readers must be able to
interpret the words in a rational, obvious, way, would be.
The problem is that an escape character cannot be escaped, if it is,
it isn't an escape character (so there is a contradiction).
the escape character <backslash> ('\\'),
when neither [...] nor itself escaped,
There are plenty of ways to rewrite this to make the point that it
is an unescaped backslash (rather than an unescaped escape char) which
becomes the escape char, my suggestion was just one possibility.
The same issue applies to being within a bracket expression, an escape
char cannot be there, so it makes no real sense to exclude it - though
it does to say that a backslash that is in there is not an escape char.
kre
ps: I'm also not greatly in favour of writing the backslash character as
a C character constant, rather than just as a character (as in a sh quoted
string for example) as '\'. Since there will always people who will object
to either of those, I wouldn't give the character's glyph form at all, but
rather refer to XBD 6.1 where it is presented without the quotes, and so
there's no problem. So "<backslash> ([xref XBD 6.1])".
