Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It'd help if I could actually rebuild this so it could be tested...
Works. Applied. Tests ok. Thanks,
leo
At 4:58 PM +0200 5/7/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Apparently it's not happy with things of the form
>
>> foo = bar * .95
>
>> where the RHS of the binary operation is a floating point constant
>> with no integer portion. Changing it to 0.95 works, so I
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apparently it's not happy with things of the form
> foo = bar * .95
> where the RHS of the binary operation is a floating point constant
> with no integer portion. Changing it to 0.95 works, so I assume the
> grammar just needs a tweak.
Yep. The lexe
Apparently it's not happy with things of the form
foo = bar * .95
where the RHS of the binary operation is a floating point constant
with no integer portion. Changing it to 0.95 works, so I assume the
grammar just needs a tweak.
--
Dan
---
