On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Jon Lang wrote:
> jerry gay wrote:
>> for the latest spec changes regarding this item, see
>> http://perlcabal.org/svn/pugs/revision/?rev=27959.
>>
>> is everyone equally miserable now? ;)
>
> Already seen it. My latest points still stand, though: #`(...) is
> sti
On 2009-Aug-11, at 1:38 pm, raiph mellor wrote:
For a quick backgrounder, Larry had talked of reserving backtick for
use as a user defined operator [1], Mark had suggested its use as a
(tightly bound) comment [2], and James et al had suggested using it to
declare units [3].
I'd like to see unit
jerry gay wrote:
for the latest spec changes regarding this item, see
http://perlcabal.org/svn/pugs/revision/?rev=27959.
is everyone equally miserable now? ;)
I'm quite happy actually -- #` or #+ makes no difference to me :-)
S02 just got that little bit simpler, so the thread was worthwhile.
jerry gay wrote:
> for the latest spec changes regarding this item, see
> http://perlcabal.org/svn/pugs/revision/?rev=27959.
>
> is everyone equally miserable now? ;)
Already seen it. My latest points still stand, though: #`(...) is
still vulnerable to ambiguity relative to #..., whereas `#(...),
> for the latest spec changes regarding this item, see
> http://perlcabal.org/svn/pugs/revision/?rev=27959.
>
> is everyone equally miserable now? ;)
> ~jerry
Ha! :)
I do indeed feel underwhelmed. I'll surely get over it but I may as
well post why, even though Larry's presumably trying to stop th
Ben Morrow wrote:
> This appears to be leading to a :comment modifier on quotables, with
> some suitable shortcut. Perhaps 'q#'? Or are we not allowed mixed alpha
> and symbols?
It's probably a bad practice, if possible.
> (I really want to suggest £, just to teach USAnians '#' isn't called
> 'po
for the latest spec changes regarding this item, see
http://perlcabal.org/svn/pugs/revision/?rev=27959.
is everyone equally miserable now? ;)
~jerry
At 6PM +0200 on 11/08/09 you (Moritz Lenz) wrote:
> Ben Morrow wrote:
> >
> > However, I would much rather see a general syntax like
> >
> > (# ... )
> > {# ... }
> > [# ... ]
> >
> > with no whitespace allowed between the opening bracket and the #: this
> > doesn't seem to conflict
Moritz Lenz writes:
> In all other cases of quote like constructs are the semantics are
> explicit first (think of Q, qx, m, <, «), the delimiter comes later.
> Changing that all of a sudden seems very unintuitive and wrong.
Thing is, comments are not quote-like. All of the quote-like
constru
Ben Morrow wrote:
> Quoth markjr...@gmail.com (Mark J. Reed):
>>
>> I still like the double-bracket idea. I don't much mind the extra
>> character; 5 characters total still beats the 7 of HTML/XML.
>
> I much prefer double-bracket to double-#: double-# gets caught out when
> you do s/^/# on code
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Jon Lang wrote:
> Ben Morrow wrote:
> > However, I would much rather see a general syntax like
> >
> >(# ... )
> >{# ... }
> >[# ... ]
> >
>
a preceding ':' (colon) makes it *notionally*
a null-label-block-comment-construct.
>
> > with no whitespace
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Carl Mäsak wrote:
> In my post "Three things in Perl 6 that aren't so great" [0], I
> outline three things about Perl 6 that bug me at present. Commenter
> daxim made what seems to me a sensible proposal [1] for solving the
> third problem, "Comments in the begin
Ben Morrow wrote:
> However, I would much rather see a general syntax like
>
> (# ... )
> {# ... }
> [# ... ]
>
> with no whitespace allowed between the opening bracket and the #: this
> doesn't seem to conflict with anything. Allowing <# ... > in rules would
> also be nice.
That's rather
smuj wrote:
> Jon Lang wrote:
>> smuj wrote:
>>> Jon Lang wrote:
Here's a radical notion: use something other than '#' to initiate an
inline comment.
>>> [snippage]
>>>
>>> Or maybe just don't allow "embedded" comments unless they are actually
>>> "embedded", i.e. if a line starts wi
Quoth markjr...@gmail.com (Mark J. Reed):
>
> I still like the double-bracket idea. I don't much mind the extra
> character; 5 characters total still beats the 7 of HTML/XML.
I much prefer double-bracket to double-#: double-# gets caught out when
you do s/^/# on code which already includes line-s
Jon Lang wrote:
smuj wrote:
Jon Lang wrote:
Here's a radical notion: use something other than '#' to initiate an
inline comment.
[snippage]
Or maybe just don't allow "embedded" comments unless they are actually
"embedded", i.e. if a line starts with a # (ignoring leading whitespace)
then it'
smuj wrote:
> Jon Lang wrote:
>> Here's a radical notion: use something other than '#' to initiate an
>> inline comment.
>>
> [snippage]
>
> Or maybe just don't allow "embedded" comments unless they are actually
> "embedded", i.e. if a line starts with a # (ignoring leading whitespace)
> then it's
Jon Lang wrote:
smuj wrote:
smuj wrote:
Jon Lang wrote:
... the biggest potential stumbling block for this
would be the existence of a double-bracket that sees frequent use at
the start of a line. Query: does '<<' count as a double bracket, or
as a single bracket (since it's equivalent to '«'
Darren Duncan wrote:
> Still, I like the idea of #...# also being supported from the point of
> symmetry with '...' and "..." also being supported, not that this is
> necessary.
This is mutually exclusive with the practice of commenting out a bunch
of lines by prepending them with '#'.
--
Jonath
smuj wrote:
> smuj wrote:
>> Jon Lang wrote:
>>> ... the biggest potential stumbling block for this
>>> would be the existence of a double-bracket that sees frequent use at
>>> the start of a line. Query: does '<<' count as a double bracket, or
>>> as a single bracket (since it's equivalent to '«'
Jon Lang wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
Personally, I think that comments should have trailing # as well as leading
ones, so they are more like strings in that the same character is used to
mark both ends.
You mean like the following?
q[quoted text]
qq(in
smuj wrote:
Jon Lang wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
I still like the double-bracket idea. I don't much mind the extra
character; 5 characters total still beats the 7 of HTML/XML.
Agreed. As I said, the biggest potential stumbling block for this
would be the exist
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Personally, I think that comments should have trailing # as well as leading
> ones, so they are more like strings in that the same character is used to
> mark both ends.
You mean like the following?
q[quoted text]
qq(interpolated quo
As an addendum, I think it goes without saying that this is the simplest form of
what I proposed:
# This is a
comment. #
That denotes a complete comment, which could be broken over lines or not, and
the rules for parsing or escaping it would be exactly the same as a character
string litera
Personally, I think that comments should have trailing # as well as leading
ones, so they are more like strings in that the same character is used to mark
both ends.
So in combination with bracketing pairs, we could for example have this:
#{ This is a comment. }#
That also serves to make th
Jon Lang wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
I still like the double-bracket idea. I don't much mind the extra
character; 5 characters total still beats the 7 of HTML/XML.
Agreed. As I said, the biggest potential stumbling block for this
would be the existence of a dou
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> I still like the double-bracket idea. I don't much mind the extra
> character; 5 characters total still beats the 7 of HTML/XML.
Agreed. As I said, the biggest potential stumbling block for this
would be the existence of a double-bracket that
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Jon Lang wrote:
> I'd recommend '#='; but if that
> isn't already being used by pod, it should be reserved for use by pod
> (and it's visually heavy).
Commenting out lines that include pod will generate #= at the
beginning of a line, which is tantamount to the prob
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> I'd be fine with the ##(embedded comment solution) approach (doubling
> the #'s), but it's much less visually appealing to me. I think I'd
> prefer to see a doubling of the bracketing chars instead of doubling
> the #'s -- the # is visu
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 06:46:34PM +0100, smuj wrote:
Although I can see some minimal uses for embedded comments, I think in
general the cost/benefit ratio isn't enough to warrant their existence.
I could be wrong of course! :-) I'd like to know if anyone has made mu
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 06:46:34PM +0100, smuj wrote:
> Although I can see some minimal uses for embedded comments, I think in
> general the cost/benefit ratio isn't enough to warrant their existence.
> I could be wrong of course! :-) I'd like to know if anyone has made much
> use of them in
Hiyas,
Carl Mäsak wrote:
In my post "Three things in Perl 6 that aren't so great" [0], I
outline three things about Perl 6 that bug me at present. Commenter
daxim made what seems to me a sensible proposal [1] for solving the
third problem, "Comments in the beginning of lines":
daxim (]):
] Let
32 matches
Mail list logo
