Re: Support for encoded-character

[Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 23:36 -0600, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Ned Freed wrote:
> > Sorry, missed that was one of the core rules. But that makes me wonder 
> > if LWSP wouldn't be more appropriate...
> 
> That's an interesting idea, as it would let you 'wrap' a string in the 
> script without including the CRLF in the string's value.  Hmm.

that could be useful, I guess, although I personally would have
preferred adopting the common convention of ending lines with backslash
if we need this capability.  sneaking it in through encoded-character is
probably easier, though.
-- 
Kjetil T.