Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 09:41:26 +0100
From: "Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
<austin-group-l@opengroup.org>
Message-ID: <20220405084126.GA6489@localhost>
| > > ��� An escape sequence is defined as the escape character followed
| > > ��� by any single character.� The escape character is a <backslash>
| > > ��� that is neither in a bracket expression nor itself escaped.
| Okay, I'll propose that wording in Thursday's teleconference.
Actually, if this (or something to the same intent) doesn't already exist,
then it might be worth adding a third sentence:
A character is considered "escaped" if it appears as the second
character in an escape sequence.
I was first going to suggest that you switch from "nor itself escaped"
to the way I originally worded it ("nor the 2nd char of an escape seq")
but I realised it would be better to explicitly define "escaped" instead,
so that can be used elsewhere, and be properly defined (not just rely upon
being what is obvious).
Whether this new sentence goes 2nd (between the existing two) or 3rd
(after them) I don't think matters -- but a slight preference for 2nd,
in which case it could also just be an additional clause on the first
sentence ", that character is escaped." or something like that, perhaps
"which is thereby escaped".
kre
