I meant string literals. But comments as well.
Andrej Mitrovic Wrote:
> Heh. I'd rather want text editors to use syntax highlighting on comments as
> well, but use a different background color. Then I would know it's a comment
> but it would also make any embedded code in the comment actually readable.
>
> bearophile < bearophileh...@lycos.com> Wrote:
>
> > Andrej Mitrovic:
> >
> > > I'm sorry, but what does q{..} mean?
> >
> > q{} is just a different syntax to write "" or ``
> >
> > It's a controversial feature. q{} isn't recognized by editors as a string,
> > so they colour the syntax it contains normally as code, and not as a
> > string. So it's a bit useful if you want to give a string to a higher order
> > function like map, instead of a delegate, and you want to keep the visual
> > illusion of a delegate:
> >
> > map!q{a * a}([1, 2, 3])
> >
> > The problem comes straight from its purpose: is that it doesn't look like a
> > string, so its true nature is a bit hidden; and this may cause some
> > troubles.
> >
> > Another possible problem was discussed when the q{} syntax was introduced.
> > It's not a clean syntax, it's a hack from the point of view of
> > parsing/lexing too.
> >
> > It's handy, but it may cause troubles too. I am getting used to it, but
> > it's a untidy hack and it will keep being nothing more than a hack. And
> > sometimes hacks later come back and bite your bum.
> >
> > Bye,
> > bearophile
>
