On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 08:41:46AM +1000, iain truskett wrote:
> Does it try to parse other escape sequences (such as \t, \n, \r etc.) or
> just the Unicode one?
No, just the Unicode escapes. Think of it as trigraphs in C -- it's
there so you can translate code from a more-featureful character s
* Damien Neil ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [24 Aug 2000 08:27]:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 06:53:31AM +1000, iain truskett wrote:
> > >/* File: C:\user\jv\demo.java */
> >
> > > t.java:1: Invalid escape character.
> > > /* File: C:\user\jv\demo.java */
> > In that situation, I would say that the java
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 06:53:31AM +1000, iain truskett wrote:
> >/* File: C:\user\jv\demo.java */
>
> > t.java:1: Invalid escape character.
> > /* File: C:\user\jv\demo.java */
>
> In that situation, I would say that the java compiler isn't really doing
> what it should be doing. i.e. That
iain truskett said:
> Well, personally I was busy with work and uni. Still am, but less
> so.
My chide was only meant nicely. Of course everyone's experience and insight
is a needed contribution to the discussion.
> I'd say that no RFC should be frozen until the deadline for all RFCs.
> People
iain truskett noted:
> Anyway: rfc5 claims to be frozen so this is probably a useless
> discussion anyway.
Hmmm yes, there is that litle detail. So where was all this insightful
discussion two weeks ago!!?? Hmmm??!!!
Actually I might ask the Librarian for some flexibility on this if anyone
c
* Johan Vromans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [24 Aug 2000 06:59]:
> iain truskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > With SLC, discarding a line if it starts with a # (after optional
> > > whitespace) is straightforward, fail safe, and fast.
> >
> > Almost. You can have # in other places on the line. It d
iain truskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > With SLC, discarding a line if it starts with a # (after optional
> > whitespace) is straightforward, fail safe, and fast.
>
> Almost. You can have # in other places on the line. It doesn't have to
> be at the start (with or without whitespace).
I w
* Johan Vromans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [24 Aug 2000 06:39]:
> iain truskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's not *that* slow. Just means the parser is looking for /* as
> > well as */ ...
> And "/*" and ""/*" and '/*' and qw(*/) and #*/ and \#*/ and m/.*/ ...
Of course. But see below.
> With
You are certainly not the first nor only person to say this. You should know
that this point-of-view is listed in the final RFC, although it is not quite
the majority opinion of all the comments I've received.
--Michael
Johan Vromans said:
>
> In my opinion, there is no need in Perl for multi-li
[Quoting Michael Mathews, on August 23 2000, 11:45, in "Re: why not just use"]
> Really, why? I have yet to hear any C or Java programmers complain
> about the fact that you cannot nest /*...*/ comments.
In their official (published!) coding standards, Sun explicitly states
that one should use th
iain truskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's not *that* slow. Just means the parser is looking for /* as well as
> */ ...
And "/*" and ""/*" and '/*' and qw(*/) and #*/ and \#*/ and m/.*/ ...
With MLC, you need to _parse_ the comments. What happens if you find a
unterminated quoted string i
Michael Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Really, why? I have yet to hear any C or Java programmers complain about the
>fact that you cannot nest /*...*/ comments.
Well _this_ C programmer just does
#if 0
#endif
And come to that
if (0) {
}
in perl.
--
Nick Ing-Simmons
> If the prime argument for mlc is commenting out large blocks of code
> then you'd better solve the nesting problem -- and do it well.
vi substitution
:.,+20s/^/##obsoleted Aug 22, 2000 ## /
works really well for the large blocks of code problem, so do
$BOGUS::Comment=<
iain truskett said
> Hmm. Just reread RFC5 and it doesn't really come out with a strong
> recommendation of anything --- as it says "no clear concensus after [a]
> week's discussion". MLCs are a good thing --- they're just tricky to get
> right.
I'm afraid this is just plain true. As the maintain
* Michael Mathews ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [24 Aug 2000 01:48]:
> Johan Vromans said
[...]
> > If the prime argument for mlc is commenting out large blocks of code
> > then you'd better solve the nesting problem -- and do it well.
> Really, why? I have yet to hear any C or Java programmers complain
>
Johan Vromans said
> mm> Nesting is a problem you don't really want to solve, in my opinion.
The
> mm> world gets real weird, real fast when you can nest and/or overlap
comments.
> mm> Not worth the trouble.
>
> If the prime argument for mlc is commenting out large blocks of code
> then you'd bett
On 23 Aug 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
> In any case, commenting out large blocks (more than one visual page)
> is highly confusing unless you can clearly see what is commented out,
> for example, by prefixing every line with a '#' or so.
I don't generally have trouble with this...most
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Michael Mathews wrote:
> Tom Christiansen said:
> > Because they don't nest.
>
> Nesting is a problem you don't really want to solve, in my opinion. The
> world gets real weird, real fast when you can nest and/or overlap comments.
> Not worth the trouble.
I disag
* Johan Vromans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [23 Aug 2000 18:25]:
[...]
> In any case, commenting out large blocks (more than one visual page)
> is highly confusing unless you can clearly see what is commented out,
> for example, by prefixing every line with a '#' or so.
Or use an editor which colours it,
"Michael Mathews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nesting is a problem you don't really want to solve, in my opinion. The
> world gets real weird, real fast when you can nest and/or overlap comments.
> Not worth the trouble.
If the prime argument for mlc is commenting out large blocks of code
then
>Yes, but they are ever so slightly burdensome to use for very large blocks
>of text.
I've never understood that.
:/foo/,/bar/s/^/##XXX## /
does it for me. There are doubtless infinite variations on the same.
--tom
Tom Christiansen said:
> D.N.>I mean, really, why not?
>
> Because we already have comments.
Yes, but they are ever so slightly burdensome to use for very large blocks
of text. We really are talking Oranges and Tangerines here anyway (at least)
since one seems like it is meant to comment A Line w
>I mean, really, why not?
Because we already have comments.
Because they don't nest.
Because there are already legal and semilegal sequences that look
like that. (No proof that such are used, since /foo/*3 doesn't
look very common, whereas /*foo/ is illegal, and $foo/*bar makes
rather little s
I mean, really, why not?
24 matches
Mail list logo
