Re: Tokenized Strings -- Are Arbitrary Characters Valid?

2011-06-13 Thread 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?

2011-06-13 Thread 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

Re: Tokenized Strings -- Are Arbitrary Characters Valid?

2011-06-13 Thread 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?

2011-06-12 Thread Mehrdad
I'm a little confused on tokenized strings -- are the following valid? Are they supposed to be? q{\u000A} q{} q{\} Thanks!