Front page | perl.perl6.language.mlc |
Postings from August 2000
Hey! I finally got a message direct from -mlc! Great! This thread was not about multiline comments, but rather about in-line comments. I still think multiline comments should be #<<token ... token That in mind, below are my reactions to your examples Michael Mathews wrote: > I like this quite a lot. Heck, even a C programmer could like #* ... *# ! > > I wonder though about backwards compatability. Let me clarify what you > propose with some examples: > > code here; #your typical comment here Yep. > > some code; #*still a single line of comment, but how does parser know? It doesn't, until it gets to the end of the line, doesn't find the terminating *#, and decides the # meant end-of-line comment, not #* meaning in-line comment, in this particular case. I'd have the parser throw a warning for this situation (unterminated in-line comment). > more code; > code #*inline comment here*# rest of code; Yep. > #* > block comment here > *# Nope. Gotta use #<<BLOCK_COMMENT block comment here BLOCK_COMMENT or your choice of other token instead of BLOCK_COMMENT. > code again; I really believe that there is and should be a distinction between in-line and multi-line comments, in order to be reasonably backward compatible. The "#<<token" is big enough it won't be found by accident, but too big for in-line comments. The #< or #* is small enough for in-line comments, but could have been used in single line comment days, so it better not accidentally comment out a large block of code (there may be a ># or *# somewhere later, so you'd get no warning). -- Glenn ===== There are two kinds of people, those who finish what they start, and so on... -- Robert Byrne _____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______ http://www.netzero.net/download/index.htmlThread Previous | Thread Next