comex wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Elliott Hird
> <penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 2009/2/23 Geoffrey Spear <geoffsp...@gmail.com>:
>>> To quote a wise player of B: "Suggestion: Interpret this leniently
>>> just for once so we don't have to
>>> bother with this."
>>>
>> non-greedy is broken too.
>
> sane is not.
You kids and your lack of context, sheesh.
The point of contention is that B has purportedly long had a rule to
the effect of:
Text (other than this clause) between [[ and ]] or between /* and */
has no effect.
which leads to the following three interpretations, using
[[ a ]] b [[ c ]] as an example:
1) Greedy matching. All three letters are between the first [[
and the second ]].
2) Non-greedy matching, but reversible order. "b" is between the
second [[ and the first ]].
3) Non-greedy matching and before-to-after order only. Intended,
but widely deemed too pragmatic to have worked.
Note that A has purportedly a rule to the effect of "text within
[[ and ]]" - can someone please explain why they think that B is
broken on this issue but A is not?
Also note that B may also have suffered some other ancient but
only-recently-noticed breakage that I'm forgetting.
