> Thomas Lockhart should speak up - he seems the only person who
> has objections yet. If the proposed thing is to be declined, something
> has to be applied instead in respect to lexer reject feature and
> accompanying size limits, as well as grammar inconsistency.
Hmm. I'd suggest that we go with the "greedy lexer" solution, which
continues to gobble characters which *could* be an operator until
other characters or whitespace are encountered.
I don't recall any compelling cases for which this would be an
inadequate solution, and we have plenty of time until v6.6 is released
to discover problems and work out alternatives.
Sorry for slowing things up; but fwiw I *did* think about it some more
;)
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California
