On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> v@p > >> ( > >> *< 0 > >> | > >> *<= 0 > >> ) > > > > It does not, and is not intended to, work. The branches of a disjunction > > should be complete expressions. > > Will the following SmPL approach be more appropriate then? > > ( > *v@p < 0 > | > *v@p <= 0 > ) Actually, all of v < 0 (never true) v <= 0 (same as v == 0) v >= 0 (always true) would seem to merit attention. Andrzej, what do you think? julia > > Regards, > Markus > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
