On Tuesday, 17 March 2015 at 21:06:04 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 03/17/15 20:47, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Not that much. But q{ string are a pain in the ass.
Why? I'm not sure if you're referring to using or parsing them.
The only problem with the former is the lack of a
non-brace-nesting
variant.
Lexing is quite trivial, as long as the lexer supports
recursion.
For example, this is a complete implementation:
TokenString: "q{" TokenStringBody "}"
TokenStringBody: ( ( ![{}] TokenClass )+ /
BracedTokenSequence )*
BracedTokenSequence: "{" ( ( ![{}] TokenClass )+ /
BracedTokenSequence )* "}"
That's PEG, but the mapping to code should be fairly obvious.
For syntax highlighting purposes it can actually be even
simpler - it's
enough to treat a `q{` token just like a `{`; everything that
follows
No. I don't agree. `q{` makes sense: it's a helper for a string
you want to mix. `q{` means: don't highlight me as a string even
if i'm one. It's clearly made for the people who writes text
editors and IDEs.
