I agree that your statement is true, but it is still not quite self sufficient.
For the time being I have no idea how to make it easier to be understood. As I
have said, for me it is a little confusing.
I would pay attention to Kirk Parker <k...@equatoria.us> idea: when_clause [
when_clause [...]] to indicate repetitions without commas and xyz [, xyz[,
...]] to indicate repetitions that require commas.
I'll be back if some worthy idea will hit my mind.
Best regards, Cristi Boboc
On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 08:48:19 PM GMT+2, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 11:20 AM Boboc Cristi <bob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello!Thank you. I was fooled by the fact that sometimes it is marked with
[...] and other times with [,...]
I think that consistency might worth attention, since [...] may indicate
"anything", while [,...] are more likely to indicate a specific thing that may
be repeated.
That isn't how that works. The former means you don't have to add a comma
between each of the multiples, the later means you do.
David J.
