Re: backslashes in escape rules

[John Mandereau]

On 2008/07/05 11:33 -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> IMO, it's much more difficult to make (and verify) a rule that covers all of
> the changes for a version.  As we currently stand, if I make changes to the
> syntax, all I have to do is write a simple rule to cover my changes.  If we
> had only one rule per version, then I'd have to integrate my rule with
> everybody else's rule.

It's trivial to concatenate rules into a single function, and convert-ly
applies rules sequentially anyway, so this is not a strong argument
against merging; if necessary, we can make merged rules clearer with a
comment for each rule in a conv function with multiple rules.

So I still think the rules should be merged, and will do this unless
somebody gives a good reason.

Cheers,
John