Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.stack.nl!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: confusion about behavior
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:47:47 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <slrnj4lib3.1rek.willem@toad.stack.nl>
References: <cda0e503-482a-4075-b3fa-af3013819716@l11g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <ln1uwn4xuc.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <pan.2011.08.15.01.57.26@gmail.com> <slrnj4h5dl.28nb.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net> <rOudnTasA46G6dTTnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@bestweb.net> <slrnj4j0ja.dpk.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net> <vamdneXEq-nxJNfTnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@bestweb.net> <lnippx17jc.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: toad.stack.nl
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: mud.stack.nl 1313524067 20951 2001:610:1108:5010::135 (16 Aug 2011 19:47:47 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@stack.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:47:47 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (FreeBSD)
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c:9491

Keith Thompson wrote:
) Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> writes:
)> On 8/15/2011 4:33 PM, Seebs wrote:
)>> On 2011-08-15, Kenneth Brody<kenbrody@spamcop.net>  wrote:
)>>> The second '+' shouldn't really say "and that's complete".
)>>>
)>>> The third '+' should really be "there is no '+++' token, nor does any token
)>>> start with it, so _now_ '++' is now complete, and we start a new token,
)>>> consisting of '+', keep looking".
)>>
)>> I'm not sure of this.  I think a tokenizer can reasonably say "I know that
)>> this is a complete token, and that there is no longer token which has this
)>> as a prefix", and punt.
)>
)> True.  (As also pointed out my Keith Thompson.)
)>
)> But, to nit^3, the point on "and that's complete" should include that part. 
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
)>   Otherwise, one might argue "but the single '+' is also a complete token", 
)> despite it not being the longest possible complete token.
)
) Seebs already covered your nit^3: "and that there is no longer token
) which has this as a prefix".

He knew that already.  He just pointed out that the second half of the
condition was necessary.  I do not agree that that was a nit to pick,
though, as it was not actually in error in the first place.  More a NB.


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT