Rolf Veen wrote:
> -  explicit_comment is mentioned. Should it be
> throwaway_comment ?
> - ,  are duplicates of , 
My mistake. It should have been the folded_line_breaks productions there.
> -  line_char(n)+ ?
Yup. The empty line case is handled by folded_empty_line (115).
> And also in , there is an
> undefined production: folded_line_breaks(n)
I'm E-mailing Clark an update that fixes all the above to be posted in the
Thanks, Rolf, for catching all this. My apologies for sending a spec while I
was still to blurry-eyed to note the more blatant errors.
In addition, a new draft will be arriving "soon", which will include the
model updates we've discussed. I hope that by then we'll manage to eradicate
any further errors I managed to introduce.
> > -  line_char(n)+ ?
> Yup. The empty line case is handled by folded_empty_line (115).
Silly me. The '(n)' obviously shouldn't be there. It is fixed in the version
I sent Clark.