Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from August 2009
smuj wrote:
> Jon Lang wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Mark J. Reed<markjreed@gmail.com> 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 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 '«')? If the former,
>> then there's a respectable chance of seeing a line that begins with
>> '<<' which would comment out as an inline comment rather than an
>> end-of-line comment. If the latter, lines beginning with '<<' would
>> still comment out as end-of-line comments. Off the top of my head, I
>> can't think of any other bracketing characters that are commonly
>> doubled up.
>>
>
> [S02] {Note however that bare circumfix or postcircumfix <<...>> is not
> a user-selected bracket, but the ASCII variant of the «...»
> interpolating word list. Only # and the q-style quoters (including m, s,
> tr, and rx) enable subsequent user-selected brackets.}
Just to clarify on that quote from S02, what I was trying to say (if I
understand the synopsis correctly) is that << counts as either single or
double depending on context. If you stick a # on the front, then << will
count as a double bracket.
Cheers,
--
smuj
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next