On 1/3/13, David A. Wheeler <dwhee...@dwheeler.com> wrote: > That algorithm also fails to deal with EOF without a preceding EOL. We > could deal with that as a special case too, though I'm inclined to just > forbid it in the spec. Handling EOF withing a preceding EOL is ugly in > general, and it's not the something you see in practice in source or > structured data.
I worry about this, because I've experienced at least one nasty text editor (not designed for programming, admittedly, but still) that stripped off *all* trailing EOL's before an EOF (I also can't remember the editor's name off-hand, but I think it was made for Windows). So I think we should treat EOF=EOL in the parser spec. Sincerely, AmkG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master HTML5, CSS3, ASP.NET, MVC, AJAX, Knockout.js, Web API and much more. Get web development skills now with LearnDevNow - 350+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122812 _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
