Subject: Re: huh?

From: "Ozan S. Yigit" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 14:57:14 -0500

Scott Schwartz wrote:

> > i believe the difference is that ``x'' without a pattern
> > immediately following it uses an implicit /^.*\n/
>
> That convention is somewhat inconsistent, since spaces are ignored
> elsewhere.  Now that @ is no longer used for fat-dot, maybe it could be
> used instead.  I.e.  use ``x@''  instead of ``x '', to mean x/^.*\n/
> and ignore spaces between tokens.

I note "l" (for "line") is unused:

	[addr]x<sp><etc> -> [addr]l<etc>	??

oz