On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 09:12:02PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The documentation should distinguish between those that are just
> pre-defined characters classes (E.G., and ) and
> those that are special builtins (E.G., and .
> The former are things that you should be freely allowed to r
The documentation should distinguish between those that are just pre-defined
characters classes (E.G., and ) and those that are special
builtins (E.G., and . The former are things that you
should be freely allowed to redefine in a derived grammar, while the other
second type may want to be t
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:59:32AM -0700, David Brunton wrote:
> A quick scan of S05 reveals definitions for these seven special named
> assertions:
> [...]
I don't think that <'...'> or <"..."> are really "named assertions".
I think that (as well as <+xyz> and <-xyz>) are simply special form
