Thanks Iavor, nothing ventured nothing gained I went ahead and made that change.
I can't find any difference in behaviour for well-formed code. I can't find any difference in whether code is accepted/rejected.
But there's a difference in error messages for ill-formed code, specifically ill-formed qualified vars/constrs:
* standard-issue Hugs reports
Undefined qualified variable "Mod1.Sub2.Subsub3.
"
-- that is, shows trailing spaces and newline after the trailing dot.
* modified Hugs reports
Syntax error in expression (unexpected `;', possibly due to bad layout)
-- or unexpected `}' -- these are pseudo- semicolon/closing brace, not actually in the file
-- that is, it's 'munched' the trailing spaces and newline, then bumped into start of next statement
-- so layout-control inserts the pseudo-'s
Then perhaps that smelly code is deliberate, to give a more helpful rejection message? hmm hmm
I still can't see why/how the parsing works for well-formed qualified vars/constrs. But best to let sleeping dogs lie.
AntC
I don't not know that code either, but looking at the comments and the surrounding code, my guess is that the 2nd `c0` should be `c1`,
and it is checking for something like `.` followed by either a lower case or upper case or symbol operator.