Ah, I posted the same code twice. I meant to show the "more readable"
versions.
Using backslashes:
(...lots of indented code
(if (= m :auto-detect)
(if (<= detected-indent n)
(raise parse-error i
"first nonempty line in a literal \
scalar is indented by %s, but it \
must be indented further in than \
the indentation level that the \
scalar is in (at level %s)"
[detected-indent n])
detected-indent)
...more indented code)
Or using triple quotes:
(...lots of indented code
(if (= m :auto-detect)
(if (<= detected-indent n)
(raise parse-error i
"""first nonempty line in a literal
scalar is indented by %s, but it
must be indented further in than
the indentation level that the
scalar is in (at level %s)"""
[detected-indent n])
detected-indent)
...more indented code)
On Apr 3, 11:35 pm, samppi <rbysam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't really want it so much for documentation strings—they're
> already formatted in a standard way—than just being able to embed
> large literal text in my code without making the code nigh unreadable.
> Here's an example:
>
> (...lots of indented code
> (if (= m :auto-detect)
> (if (<= detected-indent n)
> (raise parse-error i "first nonempty
> line in a literal scalar is indented by %s, but it must be indented
> futher in than the indentation level that the scalar is in (at level
> %s)" [detected-indent n])
> detected-indent)
> ...more indented code)
>
> (...lots of indented code
> (if (= m :auto-detect)
> (if (<= detected-indent n)
> (raise parse-error i "first nonempty
> line in a literal scalar is indented by %s, but it must be indented
> futher in than the indentation level that the scalar is in (at level
> %s)" [detected-indent n])
> detected-indent)
> ...more indented code)
>
> I'd also like to emphasize the importance, for me, of making the
> folded lines' indentation disappear. It would be annoying and ugly if
> literal text had to be mushed against the left edge of the code. I'd
> be fine with triple quotes or backslashed line-breaks, as long as they
> do this—that is, as long as they make the code more readable.
>
> I suppose I could put those long strings inside Java resource bundles,
> since they're intended for the end user anyway, but is that really
> necessary for a script? :(
>
> On Apr 3, 11:02 pm, Laurent PETIT <laurent.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > 2009/4/4 samppi <rbysam...@gmail.com>
>
> > > I wish I could do this:
>
> > > (code...
> > > "Long error string that doesn't fit within 80 characters but is
> > > descriptive, \
> > > which is good, right?"
> > > ...more code...)
>
> > > (The string above would say, "Long error string that doesn't fit
> > > within 80 characters but is descriptive, which is good, right?")
>
> > > People put code on many lines because it's much more readable if lines
> > > don't get too long.
>
> > Yeah, this is seen a lot e.g. for functions docstrings. And it makes
> > creating a graphical representation more difficult, you have to guess when
> > there are real new lines, and where not.
>
> > But are willing to ask the user to explicitly place new line characters ?
> > How would that work ? And if that would work, I guess the readability and
> > usability would suffer from this.
>
> > I guess the simplest solution for the docstrings problem would be to rewrite
> > correctly the docstring, no matter your own conventions are for the number
> > of characters per line in the rest of the code.
>
> > Or maybe have 2 flavors of strings :
> > "this kind of strings can span multiple lines
> > but newlines will be interpreted as just a single space
> > "
>
> > and
> > """this kind of strings is for real multiline
> > strings where each newline will be interpreted as a newline in
> > the resulting string."""
>
> > OR maybe as you suggested, a special symbol at the end of the line
> > indicating the reader to not include a new line :
> > "this string will have just one line \
> > thanks to the "\\"+<newline> separator. Any other occurence of the slash
> > separator not followed by newline or one of the allowed java characters
> > would be a compilation error."
>
> > > But this is not possible for strings without doing
> > > calling (str ...). This is relatively expensive, right? (str) has to
> > > create a new StringBuilder object.
>
> > > Anyways, it'd be really cool if the Clojure reader did this. My ideal
> > > would be that indentation before the continuing line would become one
> > > space, or perhaps something similar. I don't think it would make
> > > Clojure too much more complicated—in my mind, any small complication
> > > would be worth the readability. How hard would this be to implement?
> > > Would this be syntactically ambiguous?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
