From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from watmath.waterloo.edu ([129.97.140.144]) by archone.tamu.edu with SMTP id <45332>; Fri, 13 Mar 1992 03:02:55 -0600
Received: from xenitec.uucp by watmath.waterloo.edu with uucp
	id <AA02006>; Fri, 13 Mar 92 04:02:00 -0500
Received: from golem by xenitec.xenitec.on.ca id aa04085; 12 Mar 92 18:09 EST
Received: by golem.uucp (/\==/\ Smail3.1.24.1 #24.15)
	id <m0lOxuI-0000CpC@golem.uucp>; Thu, 12 Mar 1992 17:05 -0500
To: haahr@adobe.com
Cc: schwartz@groucho.cs.psu.edu, rc@archone.tamu.edu
Subject: Re: comments, newlines 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 11 Mar 92 12:27:00 EST."
             <9203111727.AA04643@utopia.adobe.com> 
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 16:05:48 -0600
Message-Id: <5714.700437948@golem>
From: "David J. Fiander" <davidf@golem.UUCP>

>From:  haahr@adobe.com
>lines and comments.  the first \+newline sequence results in the parser  
>seeing
>	x=(1 #  2 \
>	3)
>which seems reasonable.  now the question becomes, ``are backslash-newline  
>sequences in comments ignored or treated as continuation sequences?''  rc  
>currently implements comments by ignoring *everything* until the end of  
>line.  the simplicity of this rule argues for not changing it.

The way in which the rule is interpreted doesn't matter.  If
\+nl is interpreted even in comments, then the shell will see

	x=(1 # 2 3)

and ignore everything after the '#' and _still_ complain about
a syntax error.

- David