Keith Thompson wrote:
)> On 8/15/2011 4:33 PM, Seebs 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