On 2001.05.06, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Tim Legant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Nope, it's working the way it should. Comments are stripped first. This
> is true of just about every programming / configuration language in the
> world. I say "just about" because someone will probably point to one
> that doesn't work this way, but it would be the odd exception.
Well, I'm all set up to look silly for mentioning it, but....
Sh doesn't work this way, for example, and I figure that this general
syntax of using line termination, '#' comment markers, and '\' line
continuations is *nominally* based upon -- or at least popular because
of -- sh's model. In such a syntax, there are three ways of dealing
with the relationship of comments to line continuations, and I don't
really think there's a strong balance toward a single one of them among
all syntaxes in the world.
You can parse comment delimiters before line continuation (like sh), or
line continuation before comments (like mutt), or you can offer a
hybrid where comments end with an EOL *or* a line continutation marker,
which is what Arnaud Launay expected. The hybrid is also what I, as a
programmer, usually choose, since it seems to be the most flexible.
I don't think it would be silly to ask about changing the order in
which mutt parses these. I'd certainly vote for a change. But it
would perhaps mess with too many people's configuration files, so I'm
not sure it's worth it.
I just want to disagree that this behavior is somehow naturally
correct. :)
--
-D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] NSIT University of Chicago
