- From: Raffaello Giulietti <raffaello.giulietti@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 10:57:59 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 2014-05-22 04:30, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM, fantasai > <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> On 05/21/2014 01:43 PM, Simon Sapin wrote: >>> >>> On 21/05/2014 19:51, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>>>> >>>>> But also has been discussed as a generalized way to fit conceptual named >>>>> combinators like it. >>>> >>>> And in particular, is the/deep/ combinator. Simon, mind reverting >>>> your removal? >>> >>> >>> Oh, I didn’t remember /deep/. Done. >> >> >> Didn't we just agree to rename /deep/ to >>>? > > We also agreed previously, though, that /ident/ is how we'd do future > combinators, so no need to remove it now. > > ~TJ > As pointed out in previous messages, if the '/' IDENT '/' branch is part of the grammar, there should at least be an "official" name for that combinator and a (short) description for it, even a simple one that just refers to a future version of the spec. Is "named combinator" the currently endorsed name?
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2014 08:58:35 UTC