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
