records generated from UBF

Wiger Ulf ulf.wiger@REDACTED
Sun Apr 20 09:41:36 CEST 2003

From: "Erik Pearson" <erik@REDACTED>

> What if the binary representation was something like
>    ~ Int ~blahblah~
> Then the initial ~ would be a nice and and simple flag for the parser
> that binary value was coming up. This would be consistent with all of
> the other simple types, for which the initial byte serves as a flag for
> the type (" for string, ' for contants, 0-9 or - for number (oops, or
> binary)...)

I'm not the one to either approve or reject your suggestion, but I think
you do have a good point.

> Finally, just a quick correction to the spec at
> I believe the structure should be defined with comma separators rather
> than just whitespace
>      { Obj1, Obj2, ..., Objn }
> rather than
>      { Obj1 Obj2 ... Objn }
> The examples show the comma separators.

I was also confused by the example, but... reading on you will find that
Joe has defined comma as whitespace:

"For convenience blank, carriage return, line feed tab and comma are treated
as white space. Comments can be included in UBF(A) with the syntax %...% the
usual quoting convention applies. "

That is, the commas are optional.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list