Ted Ashton 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.
>
> Negative. If you use paired delimiters you're ok.
>
> qc( Here's a quick comment which actually contains
> qc( another comment )
> within it
> );
This type of comment will not comment out arbitrary text. In particular, it
might
have problems with text containing mismatched (){}<>. And yet using non-paired
delimiters doesn't allow commenting out comments. My ideas, which address both,
were in a concurrent-in-time posting to this one I'm replying to.
And the choice of a single-character delimiter is hard for this sort of muliline
comment for use in commenting out blocks of code, considering the line-noise
nature of perl source code. A multi-character delimiter seems imperative for
commenting out code, just as for here documents.
--
Glenn
=====
There are two kinds of people, those
who finish what they start, and so
on... -- Robert Byrne
_______________________________________________
Why pay for something you could get for free?
NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
