On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, Mike Lambert wrote:
> > Clint brought a small assembler string but to my attention, and I found
> > another bug while fixing the first. Bugs were:
> > a) 'a"b"c' was turned into 'a[sc:1]c' before being turned into [sc:2]
> > b) 'a\"b' was printing being stored as a\"b and n
> Clint brought a small assembler string but to my attention, and I found
> another bug while fixing the first. Bugs were:
> a) 'a"b"c' was turned into 'a[sc:1]c' before being turned into [sc:2]
> b) 'a\"b' was printing being stored as a\"b and not a"b
There was some discussion about this, but no
I think Andy's post is going through moderation, but I can still reply to
it. :)
> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:01:11 +0100
> From: Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Mike Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 02:57:42PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >b) 'a\"b' was printing being stored as a\"b and not a"b
>
> The patch for the first looks good, but I'm not sure about the
> second. Have we settled on the behavior of single-quoted strings?
Don't know about "settled" but I sugges
I've been using single-quoted strings in the assembler interchangeably with
double-quoted strings
only because I couldn't find an easier way to say:
set S0, 'Dan said, "UGH!"'
Unless I used \ sequences for the double-quotes.
Personally, I'm in favor of keeping ' and " functionally equivale
At 1:41 PM -0400 4/16/02, Mike Lambert wrote:
>Clint brought a small assembler string but to my attention, and I found
>another bug while fixing the first. Bugs were:
>a) 'a"b"c' was turned into 'a[sc:1]c' before being turned into [sc:2]
>b) 'a\"b' was printing being stored as a\"b and not a"b
Th
