On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 07:57:59PM +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote: : There is a "[[:alpha:][:digit:]" and a "[[:alpha:][:digit]]" on the : A5-page.
Hmm, well, thanks--I went to fix it and I see Patrick beat me to the fix. But in one of the updates, it says: +[Update: Actually, that's now written C<< <+alpha+digit> >>, avoiding +the mistaken impression entirely.] And it occurs to me that we could probably allow <alpha+digit> there since there's no ambiguity what <alpha means, and we're already claiming the next character after the opening word to decide how to process the rest of the text inside angles. Even if someone writes <alpha + digit> that would fail under the current policy of treating "+ digit" as rule, since you can't start a rule with +. Unfortunately, though, <identchar - digit> would be ambiguous, and/or wrong. Could allow whitespace there if we picked an explicit "this is rule" character. Did we remove "this is string"? If so, we could swipe the colon: <after: --help> Could put back "this is string" with explicit quotes: <after '--help'> but that doesn't save much over <after('--help')> which is partly why we removed "this is string" in the first place. Larry