|go ahead... be a heretic|
|( #3333=superdoc: print w/replies, xml )||Need Help??|
> IMHO the first sentence doesn't apply here because eof's syntax can be expressed by a prototype
Depends how you define "syntax can be expressed by a prototype".
A "can be parsed without errors" criteria is not enough for me.
eof(); and eof; are (magically) different syntax for eof, and this difference can't be expressed with prototypes.
In the past the prototype symbol set was extended with *, + or _ in order to add prototypes to other built-ins.
This criteria isn't met here.
In reply to Re^2: Why does eof have a prototype?