From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFC2BB91 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:12:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0NNCf1C016974 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:12:41 +0100 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA12715 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:12:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from furbychan.cocan.org (use.the.admin.shell.to.set.your.reverse.dns.for.this.ip [80.68.91.176] (may be forged)) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0NNCeTw016971 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:12:40 +0100 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CsquO-0007Fm-00 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:12:40 +0000 Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:12:40 +0000 Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Strange syntax error Message-ID: <20050123231239.GA27870@furbychan.cocan.org> References: <20050123211112.GA14067@furbychan.cocan.org> <41F423D4.mail3QC11LB2O@kwel.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41F423D4.mail3QC11LB2O@kwel.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: Richard Jones X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41F42F69.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41F42F68.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 syntax:01 wrote:01 parsing:01 bug:01 expr:01 ...:98 clause:03 pattern:03 pattern:03 manual:07 manual:07 strange:07 definition:07 definition:07 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 04:23:16PM -0600, Kurt Welgehausen wrote: > > Is this a parsing bug? > > See section 6.7 of the manual, 'pattern-matching ::= ...'. > > is not mentioned in the definition of > (section 6.6); it's mentioned only in the definition > of (section 6.7). Since an or-pattern is a > , it appears that it can have only one > clause. Thanks to all who replied. Yes, it was my misunderstanding of the manual. Rich. --