On Nov 23, 2005, at 10:38 AM, geiger wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
günter geiger wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
but probably it would be nice to hear somebody else's opinion on this (at least from those who are not entirely bored of this thread)
Not an opinion,but an alternative proposal would be to use something non-numeric instead of 0x, like "$" for example.
looking into kernighan-ritchie it says (if i read the c-syntax-graph correctly) that the function-name is an identifier which in turn has to match the regular expression "[_A-Za-z]{[_A-Za-z0-9]}*" (transcription to regex done by me, so it might be erroneous)
it doesn't say anything about non-alphanumeric characters (except for the underscore), so i am a bit afraid of that.
Well, a bad example then, what about "x0" instead of "0x", or whatever doesnt start as a numeric value.
0x was chosen since it is the way that C declares hex values. Instead of creating some arbitrary syntax, why don't we stick to the well known ones and save the brain space for other details. HTML/XML style &entities; won't work, nor will emacs style \201 characters.
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
- Eldridge Cleaver