OK. Unless anybody expresses a preference for a single >, I will change
back to >>.
--On 19 March 2002 15:34 -0800 Michael Fitzgerald <> wrote:
> James: Just as adjacent patterns or name classes in a group require a
> connector
> James: (e.g. |), so annotation elements that are siblings of patterns or
> name
> James: classes require a connector (>)
>
> John: I think that ">>" should be used instead of ">" (as in the previous
> John: representation), because of its greater visibility.
>
> James: Noted. Anybody else have an opinion?
>
>
> I like the append connotation of '>>'. It fits in my mind with the
> connotation of followAnnotations, so it gets my vote.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
