From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: craig@jcb-sc.com
To: zack@rabi.columbia.edu
Cc: craig@jcb-sc.com
Subject: Re: gcc driver language: poll
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:46:00 -0000
Message-ID: <19990325194033.6695.qmail@deer>
References: <199903232236.RAA19048@blastula.phys.columbia.edu>
X-SW-Source: 1999-03n/msg00843.html
Message-ID: <19990331234600.QqAaN0enabJa2ZoFRYEsOkQv1g5YmwUrOrWEgcHVBP4@z>

I don't see any obvious problems with the new proposal, but am not
sufficiently "in touch" with the world of specs to want anyone to
take that as any kind of endorsement.  One question:

>~X*			all switches beginning with -X
>~X(*)			same as ~X*, but delete -X

Would it be reasonable to replace the second form with this?

>~X?*			same as ~X*, excluding -X

Maybe I misunderstand "delete".  Also, I'm thinking in terms of the
syntax looking a bit more like wildcarding than it currently does.
(That might or might not be a good thing in the long run.)

Generally, though, I think `(*)' is syntactically inappropriate to
mean one or more following characters.  Perhaps another character
could be found, etc.

        tq vm, (burley)