Yes, I can see why.
9.4.2.2 also neglects to say that
(*) is (probably) a
token. Except via one example it does not even say what
(*)
means.
it calls
@* an "implicit
event_expression"
even though it would be wrong to say "
@ ( @* )", and
more natural to say
"
@( * or static_fn_var )" or "
@( (*) or
static_fn_var )" (the latter being easier to tokenize).
My inclination is to treat all of these
.*,
@*,
and
(*) as single tokens, and to warn as non-standard
extensions
on any whitespace which intervenes (provided adding it hasn't given
the text another tokenization).
On 11/21/2011 10:39 AM, Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
A
similar question arose in the past about '@*' and was never
resolved, see Mantis 1286.
Shalom
Footnote 25 from the Annex (A.10) refers
to ".*"
as a token, and it is written as a token in the BNF.
Until recently, I've always scanned this as two tokens, but
the error of that approach just dawned on me and I'm
wondering if I can really believe the LRM on this point?
Greg
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner,
and is
believed to be clean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material
for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or
distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Mon Nov 21 14:37:41 2011