From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14091 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2008 08:38:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 14079 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2008 08:38:45 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:38:23 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 019792A974E; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:38:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id dj1PSK6ruQpl; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:38:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C7E02A974C; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:38:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 29FBAE7ACB; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:37:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:38:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] Wrong documentation for "&&var"? Message-ID: <20080112083739.GB9143@adacore.com> References: <20080108065524.GA24614@adacore.com> <20080108204130.GA8365@caradoc.them.org> <20080111194353.GA9143@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00301.txt.bz2 > > So Eli, do you agree with the documentation change? > > Reluctantly, yes. I think the &(&foo) syntax is really ugly. I agree it would have been nice to be able to use &&foo, but if it makes the grammar ambiguous... Anyway, the documentation change is now in. Thanks Eli. -- Joel