On Tuesday, 21 October 2003 at  6:33:23 +0900, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> * Jim Freeze <jim / freeze.org> [Oct, 20 2003 21:20]:
> > Nope, that doesn't help. The production:
> >   XS : /*empty*/ | X | XS X ;
> well, you're production doesn't match this does it?  try putting empty

It does. What I found out is that the XS rule is ok, but it did not
like the /*empty*/ being defined only in XS.
For example, it did not like:

  start : A B ;
  A : /*empty*/ | a | A a ;
  B : whatever ;

Bu, the following is ok:

  start : B | A B;
  A : /*empty*/ | a | A a ;
  B : whatever ;

> or new line into XS instead.  btw, isn't X XS preferred?

I don't know. In all the examples I have read, it is XS : X | XS X;

-- 
Jim Freeze
----------
In a five year period we can get one superb programming language.  Only
we can't control when the five year period will begin.