Re: ?\_ patch

[Kim F. Storm]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>     Ok.  So I assume that you want ?XY to be invalid syntax
>     unless Y is <= 040 or one of  " ' ; ( ) [ ] ? or #
> 
> That is the idea.  I can see how someone could have written (?a(b))
> and think it legitimate, but a person could hardly argue that (?ab)
> instead of (?a b) is legitimate.
> 
> It's possible there is some other syntax char I have forgotten
> that should be legitimate there too.  If you can think of one,
> please add it.

I have installed the changes.

Edward O'Connor suggested to modify checkdoc to look for ?\ at the end
of lines and replace them with the new syntax.  That's a good idea,
but I have not done this.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk