Mark Volkmann <r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 25, 1:43 pm, Jan Rychter <j...@rychter.com> wrote: >>> Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> writes: >>> > Am 25.01.2009 um 17:11 schrieb Zak Wilson: >>> >>> >> Clojure has that in the comment form: (comment (do (not (eval this)))) >>> >>> > No. That's not equivalent. comment leaves a nil behind, while #* >>> > would not. >>> >>> > [:a (comment :b) :c] => [:a nil :c] >>> > [:a #* :b :c] => [:a :c] >>> >>> Exactly. In CL you can use #-(and) for anything, for example function >>> arguments. I use it like that way regularly while developing code. It >>> has to be a reader macro. >>> >> >> I'm not ready to add a features-like system to Clojure just yet, but >> am in favor of a single-form comment-out reader macro. >> >> Just need to pick a dispatch character: >> >> #- >> #/ >> #; >> >> other candidates? > > I prefer #; since ; is already the normal comment character.
I would much rather see #-, for two reasons: 1. It doesn't mess up all the simple regexp engines that rely on knowing that anything after a ; is a comment. 2. It makes logical sense to me (minus as in compile everything minus this form). Choosing #; means that authors of all editor support code, formatting or coloring code, javascript beautifiers, and so on will have to deal with this -- and most of them do not have a reader at hand. --J. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
