|
 |
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote in message
news:3C9A9BE7.70C1AD13@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Tom Melly wrote:
>
> > Yes (but I think you're example would have fallen over).
>
> Is that British for invalid syntax?
>
No - the British would have been "your code, whilst clear in its intent, would
not have been parsed correctly due to the rigidity of the parser in such
matters, and it's insistence on adhering to the protocols, arbitary as they may
be".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
