| 1 |
On 27 February 2012 11:06, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> AFAICS, the spec doesn't say anything about the characters allowed in |
| 3 |
> the name of an EAPI. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I think the logic behind that is that an EAPI defined outside PMS |
| 6 |
wouldn't be bound by PMS's rules anyway, and the EAPIs defined inside |
| 7 |
PMS are explicitly listed so there's not much point giving a general |
| 8 |
syntactic rule as well (and if there was one, it might encourage |
| 9 |
people to write code that blows up messily when it sees a hypothetical |
| 10 |
non-PMS EAPI that doesn't obey the rule, rather than simply treating |
| 11 |
it as unknown). |
Archives