BOGOLEX_TOKEN

[David Relson]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:15:41 +0100
Boris 'pi' Piwinger <3.14 at logic.univie.ac.at> wrote:

> David Relson <relson at osagesoftware.com> wrote:
> 
> >> So AFAICS only : and # might be in such a BOGOLEX_TOKEN, but
> >> not in a TOKEN. So ?=()+ could go. It won't probably hurt to
> >> leave them in, though.
> >
> >'?' is necessary as replace_nonascii_characters cause it to be
> >present. The other four are unnecessary, and also harmless.
> 
> OK; so we have =()+ which are allowed but could not show up,
> right?

Yes.