Ken Fox wrote: > A question: Do rules matched in a { code } block set backtrack points for > the outer rule?
I don't believe so. From A5: A pattern nested within a closure is classified as its own rule, however, so it never gets the chance to pass out of a {...} closure. Indeed, to get a rule in a closure to even continue matching from the same point in the string, you would need to write: rule expr1 { <term> { m:cont/@operators/ or fail } <term> } Backtracking would just step back over the rule as if it were atomic (or followed by a colon). Damian