On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:08 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" email@example.com wrote:
Am 29.11.2010 00:01, schrieb Alexander Belopolsky:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 5:56 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: ..
This definition fails long before we get beyond 127-th code point:
What do infer from that? That the definition is wrong, or the code is wrong?
The development version of the reference manual is more detailed, but as far as I can tell, it still defines digit as 0-9.
I wasn't asking about 0..9, but about "infinity". According to the spec, it shouldn't accept that (and neither should it accept 'infinitY').
According to the link that I mentioned,
infinity ::= "Infinity" | "inf"
and "Case is not significant, so, for example, “inf”, “Inf”, “INFINITY” and “iNfINity” are all acceptable spellings for positive infinity."
I completely agree with your arguments and the reference manual has been improved a lot in the recent years.