robin wrote:
...
> (6)7
> might work well as a repeat factor that avoids the use of *.
My preprocessor already uses 6(7), but I'm not sure I'll keep
it. It's not ambiguous, I'm just not sure there isn't a better
syntax around if I looked hard.
--
J. Giles
"I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software
design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously
no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated
that there are no obvious deficiencies." -- C. A. R. Hoare
|