Subject:
|
Re: BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:23:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1230 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Kyle McDonald writes:
> I'm interested in the community's take on this. My program currently
> ignores whitespace entirely as if it weren't present. This means that
> my program wouldn't even notice this. If this is illegal I'll have
> to make some changes. :)
I personally feel that whitespace should be ignored. However, if that is
the case, the BFC spec should probably be updated to note this.
It might also be argued that further comments after the INVERTNEXT should
also be ignored. However, I think it would be a lot harder to argue that
the current BFC spec allows this.
--Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat?
|
| (...) I think I agree with that. Actually, I could go either way. (...) Right. (...) I'm opposed to allowing additional comments between INVERTNEXT and the statements it affects -- one program's 'comment' is another program's 'meta-statement'. OTOH, (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat?
|
| Lars C. Hassing wrote: > Currently L3P complains. It takes the spec literally: 1 > 9 INVERTNEXT 2 > 9 This option inverts a subfile. It may only be used immediately before a 3 > 9 subfile command line, and it only influences the immediately 4 > 9 (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
