On 02/07/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fergal Daly wrote:
> It looks like it's only one level of nesting. Any reason not to go the
> whole hog with something like
>
> ..1
> OK 1
> ..2
> ...1
> OK 2
> OK 3
> ...2
> OK 4
> ..3
> OK5
I believe the conclusion here was that because demand for nested groups
appeared to be extremely limited, to START with just the one level, with
the notion of nested groups having that syntax, but not included in the
specification or implementation until there's been time for the initial
group code to settle down.
So we have a place to put nests should we need to, but it would
complicate implementation greatly if we had it immediately.
Since my understanding of the notation was wrong, my proposed
notations is wrong. That said, I'm not sure how the above extends to
nested groups.
F
Adam K
