🚀 go-pugleaf

 In article <11555@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
 >In this case, you and I initially read the blue-paint provision one
 >way, while Dave and the example indicate that we should have read it
 >as saying ALL blue paint persists until the end of the expansion.
 >
 >If this had come up during the public review, I would have argued
 >for clarification of the specification, to avoid the problem we
 >just had in understanding the intention.

Actually, it did. See the second round comments from Peter Fraser
(University of Waterloo). Like Dave, we used the examples to resolve
the problem you're discussing here, and provided a different example
of a nesting problem to draw attention to the shady wording.

David Tanguay