[Jot] #>#>very particular sort of meaning. But programming languages are #>#>very, very strictly defined. Unlike natural language, programming #>#>languages very rarely possess symbols that have simultaneous #>#>meanings depending on the context. How does a compiler handle #>#>ambiguity? It doesn't. We define the rules so there is no #># #>#Counterexample: #># #>#sendmail.cf -> $: #>#(as well as any number of other $ variables) [Mark M] #>Is that a counterexample? Variables have, well, variable meanings, but #>in any context -- at runtime -- only one of them will be in effect. # #>I'm putting this as a question rather than an assertion because I don't #>know the language of this construction. But am I right here? [Jot, round 2] #The example I'm thinking of (which doesn't make sense in context, #but was valid when I was playing with this was): # #$: $: $: # #In which all three $:'s meant different things. Oh, sure. Contextual distinction. In Perl, the '#' character begins a comment, but '$#foo', iirc, is an assignable variable meaning the highest subscript value in the array @foo. -- Mark A. Mandel