Re: Tokenized Strings -- Are Arbitrary Characters Valid?

[Bernard Helyer]

All they are is passed through the tokeniser to ensure they lex as valid 
D (not parse). 

http://d-programming-language.org/lex.html

A naked slash is not a valid token on its own, AFAIK, so it shouldn't 
work. But the other two are fine.

Re: Tokenized Strings -- Are Arbitrary Characters Valid?

[Bernard Helyer]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:13:13 +, Bernard Helyer wrote:

 All they are is passed through the tokeniser to ensure they lex as valid
 D (not parse).
 
 http://d-programming-language.org/lex.html
 
 A naked slash is not a valid token on its own, AFAIK, so it shouldn't
 work. But the other two are fine.

Back slash, rather.

Re: Tokenized Strings -- Are Arbitrary Characters Valid?

[Bernard Helyer]

Actually, the \u stuff indicates a literal and not an actual token, so 
the only actually valid one is ''. Third time's the charm!

Tokenized Strings -- Are Arbitrary Characters Valid?

[Mehrdad]

I'm a little confused on tokenized strings -- are the following valid?
Are they supposed to be?

q{\u000A}
q{}
q{\}

Thanks!