Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>> + * When writing or updating patterns, assume that the contents these
>> + * patterns are applied to are syntactically correct. You do not have
>> + * to implement all syntactical corner cases---the patterns have to be
>> + * sufficiently permissive.
>> + */
>
> IMO, as written, the comment falls short of suggesting that patterns can
> be simple. How about appending "and can be simple"?
The patterns can be simple without implementing all syntactical
corner cases, as long as they are sufficiently permissive.
perhaps?
Thanks.
