From: stt@ada-uts.UUCP
Subject: Re: lexical question
Date: Mon, 21-Sep-87 17:31:00 EDT [thread overview]
Date: Mon Sep 21 17:31:00 1987
Message-ID: <57900045@ada-uts> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 28027@mitre-bedford.ARPA
As the BOOK says in 2.2:2
... an explicit separator is required ... when without
separation, interpretation as a single lexical element is
possible...
In this case, the separator is not required because
"1:=" is not a legal single lexical element, nor
is "1:". It is true that "1:0:" might be considered
a based literal, except that 2.4.2:1 specifies that
the "base must be at least two and at most sixteen."
However, even if it were "2:" instead of "1:", the lexer
must look beyond the ":" to determine whether the
":" is acting as an allowable replacement for "#" (see
2.10:3).
Tucker Taft c/o Intermetrics, Cambridge, MA
next parent reply other threads:[~1987-09-21 21:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <28027@mitre-bedford.ARPA>
1987-09-21 21:31 ` stt [this message]
1987-09-22 16:50 lexical question Mike Feldman
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1987-09-19 1:47 Emery
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox