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 > ); Hmmm... you are correct about that, and this seems pretty promising. Particularly if I could say: qc~Here's a quick comment which actually contains qc*another comment* within it ~; or choose to use any delimiter that I like. --Michael
- 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
- Re: RFC: multiline comments Michael Mathews