8 Feb
2010
8 Feb
'10
6:04 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 01:24:55PM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
What would be the actual change proposed? If it is something concrete and not something like "negatives should be interpreted as unary minus when otherwise it would lead to a parse error" then that wouldn't be good. I have enough issues with the layout rule as is :)
I imagine it would be something like deleting the production lexp6 -> - exp7 and adding the production exp10 -> - fexp