On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 01:39:29PM -0500, Me wrote:
> So, how about something like:
>
> : # lock in current atom, ie as now
> :] # lock in surrounding group, currently ::
> :> # lock in surrounding rule, currently :::
> :/ # lock in top level r
On 22 Sep 2002 at 21:06, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) writes:
> > While and don't follow same syntax, I don't really see
> > any better solutions.
>
> is sufficiently "hard" that it musn't be confused with the
> colon series.
Yes, I didn't think that enough.
:,::,:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) writes:
> While and don't follow same syntax, I don't really see
> any better solutions.
is sufficiently "hard" that it musn't be confused with the
colon series.
> I wonder if might be usefull instead of with proper
> syntax-highlighting.
Yeah. :: sho
> Backtracking syntax includes:
>
> :, ::, :::, ,
>
> 1. It's nice how the ':', '::', and ':::' progression indicates
> progressively wider scope. But I would be surprised if
> newbies don't say to themselves, "now j
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Me) writes:
> > 1. It's nice how the ':', '::', and ':::' progression indicates
> > progressively wider scope. But I would be surprised if
> > newbies don't say to themselves, "now just how wide a
> > scope am I backtracking when there's three colons?".
>
> Why would newbies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Me) writes:
> 1. It's nice how the ':', '::', and ':::' progression indicates
> progressively wider scope. But I would be surprised if
> newbies don't say to themselves, "now just how wide a
> scope am I backtracking when there's three colons?".
Why would newbies be writing thr
Backtracking syntax includes:
:, ::, :::, ,
I like the way the ':' looks in patterns. But I noticed I have
several niggles about a number of other aspects of the
above syntax. All the niggles are minor, individually, but
they added up to enough that I thought I'd see wh
