Possible change to gen* for splits

[Michael Meissner]

On Mon, Mar 16, 1970 at 11:43:40AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
>     Actually, since I can do lookahead, how about:
> 
> 	"condition"
> 
> 	"&& reload_completed"
> 
>     That seems to better reflect the actual relationship of the two conditions.
> 
> I guess that works since it would be meaningless were there not a
> previous condition, but it seems sort of "odd" to me, though I can't say
> exactly why.  My concern is in picking a syntax where it's obvious the
> is some relation between the two conditions to somebody who might not
> have carefully poured through all the documentation.

I think having the && implicit would be better:

	"condition"

	"reload_completed"

(and obviously if the second condtion is "", the gen* would translate it to 1).

-- 
Michael Meissner, Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company.
PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, Massachusetts 01886, USA
Work:	  meissner@redhat.com		phone: +1 978-486-9304
Non-work: meissner@spectacle-pond.org	fax:   +1 978-692-4482