Subject:
|
Re: BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:13:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1306 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Travis Cobbs wrote:
> 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.
I think I agree with that. Actually, I could go either way.
> However, if that is
> the case, the BFC spec should probably be updated to note this.
Right.
> 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.
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, if we had two meta-statements like INVERTNEXT, and it was possible
for them to both affect the same line, we'd *have* to allow additional
meta-statements/comments between the meta-statement and the statement.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
