Hi,
Tom Worster wrote:
I agree with Sara all the way except the opinion that it's too late to
fix this bug with option B, which I think is the right one.
I simply don't know if it is too late or not so I suggest Peter enter a
bug report and see what happens. If it's too late for 7.0.0 do it in
Hey Sara,
Sara Golemon wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Bishop Bettini wrote:
Option (b) sounds reasonable, but there's probably A Solid Reason it was
implemented that way
AIUI, the "solid reason" was because it's dangerous to fail silently
where you have high confidence that something
On 10/2/15 1:04 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Peter Cowburn
wrote:
a) change all other "invalid" escape sequences to be a parse error [that
would mean "\m" would raise a parse error!]
b) change \u{} to behave like any other escape sequence, by not raising a
parse err
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Bishop Bettini wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Peter Cowburn
> wrote:
>
>> a) change all other "invalid" escape sequences to be a parse error [that
>> would mean "\m" would raise a parse error!]
>>
>> b) change \u{} to behave like any other escape sequence
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Peter Cowburn
wrote:
> a) change all other "invalid" escape sequences to be a parse error [that
> would mean "\m" would raise a parse error!]
>
> b) change \u{} to behave like any other escape sequence, by not raising a
> parse error and instead keeping the literal
