Michael Mathews wrote: > > 2) Also this proposition fails in one of my goals, which was to allow > arbitrary nesting of multiline comments. I believe this would be true for > any function based solution. > > For example, this should be okay but I don't see how it could: > > 1 qc/* > 2 added this comment on 08/02/2000 > 3 qc/* this is a nested comment */; > 4 */; > > Under the current Way (using 1-character delimiters) the first qc would end > right after the "08" on line 2 (bad). But even under your Way the first qc > would after line 3, at the first "*/;" encountered (bad too). Of course, like all the other q.// operators, the actual delimiters are selectable. E.g. 1 qc(* # heh, old Pascal style comments! 2 added this comment on 08/02/2000 3 qc/* this is a nested comment */; 4 *); -- John Porter
- Re: RFC: multiline comments Tim Jenness
- Re: RFC: multiline comments Michael Mathews
- Re: RFC: multiline comments John Barnette
- Re: RFC: multiline comments Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC: multiline comments Michael Mathews
- Re: RFC: multiline comments Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC: multiline comments Michael Mathews
- Re: RFC: multiline comments Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC: multiline comments John Porter
- Re: RFC: multiline comments Michael Mathews
- Re: RFC: multiline comments John Porter
- Re: RFC: multiline comments Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC: multiline comments Glenn Linderman
- Re: RFC: multiline comments John Porter
- A Unicode fallacy [Was: Re: RFC... Glenn Linderman
- Re: A Unicode fallacy [Was: Re:... John Porter
- Re: A Unicode fallacy [Was: Re:... Glenn Linderman
- Re: A Unicode fallacy [Was: Re:... John Porter
- Re: A Unicode fallacy [Was: Re:... Glenn Linderman
- Re: RFC: multiline comments Michael Mathews
- Re: RFC: multiline comments Graham Barr