On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:55:24PM +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
: On Jan 3, 2008 6:36 PM, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 11:28:54AM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: > : Paul Hodges wrote:
: > : > http://perl6.org/doc/design/syn/S02.html still says:
: > : > "Intra-line
--- Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Hodges wrote:
> > http://perl6.org/doc/design/syn/S02.html still says:
> > "Intra-line comments will not be supported in standard Perl"
>
> This is wrong, since S02 also defines intra-line comments, under
> "Whitespace and Comments". It calls
On Jan 3, 2008 6:36 PM, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 11:28:54AM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> : Paul Hodges wrote:
> : > http://perl6.org/doc/design/syn/S02.html still says:
> : > "Intra-line comments will not be supported in standard Perl"
> Note that the docum
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 11:28:54AM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Paul Hodges wrote:
: > http://perl6.org/doc/design/syn/S02.html still says:
: > "Intra-line comments will not be supported in standard Perl"
:
: This is wrong, since S02 also defines intra-line comments, under
: "Whitespace and Comm
Jonathan Lang wrote:
> How about '~#', meaning something along the lines of "string-like
> comment"? The idea is that the syntax that follows this would conform
> closely to that of string literals (i.e., quotes). We might even
> consider loosening the restrictions on delimiter characters, allowi
I've been putting a fair amount of thought into this. Here's what
I've come up with:
Perl 6 has several instances where whitespace is required or forbidden
in order to better facilitate "Do What I Mean" programming: for
instance, by having the presence or absence of whitespace before curly
braces
Paul Hodges wrote:
> http://perl6.org/doc/design/syn/S02.html still says:
> "Intra-line comments will not be supported in standard Perl"
This is wrong, since S02 also defines intra-line comments, under
"Whitespace and Comments". It calls them 'embedded comments'. You
don't need a 'use' statemen
I love this list. I wish I had more of value to contribute. =o]
But for those of you who don't want to read a long blather, this is
mostly opinion, hopefully sans soapbox. Feel free to skip to the end.
> What's with the sudden influx of people swooping in at the
> last minute and attacking design
On Dec 30, 2007 8:10 AM, Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's say that the programmer in question wants to comment out all but
> the third line; so he prefixes everything else with '#':
>
> #if ($test)
> #{
>.say;
> #} else {
> # .doit;
> #}
>
> What the writer _wants_ this t
to disambiguate.
>
Is it not possible to skip the commented sections by the parser?
Why have every other popular language, that i know, multiline comments
included without any problems? It would be very useful for better
developing with perl.
If you would use a mlc like =# #= where the opening ta
Offer Kaye wrote:
> #( commenting out a large code section, yey for Perl6 multi-line comments...
>if ($foo) {
> print "...or not :(\n"
>}
> ) # this should have been the end of the embedded comment
...and since it wasn't, you probably should have chosen other brackets such as:
#[
Whitespace is significant in many places. Even in some of the corners
of Perl 5. Perl 6 has a different set of rules, and it will take some
getting used to, but the rules are designed to let you do things as
naturally as possible.This, for instance, works fine:
my @values =
# (1,2,3) # old
On Dec 30, 2007 6:10 PM, Jonathan Lang wrote:
>
> Short answer: the compiler has no way of knowing whether the
> programmer wants an embedded comment or a line comment; so instead of
> guessing, it requires the programmer to disambiguate.
>
[...snip...]
>
> # if ($test)
> # {
> .say;
>
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> On 30/12/2007, Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only wart
> > is that '#( ... )' cannot begin at the very start of a line; but it's
> > easy enough to get around that restriction - say, with some leading
> > whitespace.
>
> Thanks for the reply - can you ple
On 30/12/2007, Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only wart
> is that '#( ... )' cannot begin at the very start of a line; but it's
> easy enough to get around that restriction - say, with some leading
> whitespace.
Thanks for the reply - can you please what is the problem with having
Christian Mueller wrote:
> i don't know the actually state in the discussion about multiline
> comments, but i would propose an idea.. a combination of POD's = and the
> traditional route char...
Perl 6 already has a robust system for multiline and embedded
comments, as des
Hello list,
i don't know the actually state in the discussion about multiline
comments, but i would propose an idea.. a combination of POD's = and the
traditional route char...
=#
this is a multi
line comment
#=
=# comment #= this is not commented
What you think about it?
regards
Christian
It was just kind of a pain because you
had to put a "=cut" after the "=end", and because you had to put
paragraph spaces between everything. We're getting rid of both of
those restrictions.
Excellent! That's what was really bugging me. I'm really glad that is
changing :)
Thanks,
Alfie
Alfie John skribis 2005-10-12 15:28 (+1000):
> Does Perl6 support multiline comments?
All incarnations of Perl have allowed us to begin multiple subsequent
lines with the comment glyph '#'. I am sure Perl 6 will not break this
tradition.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_b
On 10/12/05, Alfie John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/10/2005, at 3:33 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > =begin comment
> > =end comment
>
> But does that then break my lovely formatted pod like it does in Perl5?
Try this:
% cat > dosomething.pl
=head1 TITLE
Thingy - do something
=head1 DESCRIPTI
On 12/10/2005, at 4:18 PM, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Alfie John wrote:
Hi (),
This is probably a stupid question, but I can't find anything
from google:
Does Perl6 support multiline comments?
Briefly, No and kind of.
Standard Perl 6 comments are just like those in Perl 5. A '#
Alfie John wrote:
Hi (),
This is probably a stupid question, but I can't find anything from google:
Does Perl6 support multiline comments?
Briefly, No and kind of.
Standard Perl 6 comments are just like those in Perl 5. A '#' starts a
comment that is terminated by the e
On 12/10/2005, at 3:33 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
On 10/11/05, Alfie John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does Perl6 support multiline comments?
Yes, in the form of pod blocks.
=begin comment
=end comment
They nest, too.
Luke
But does that then break my lovely formatted pod like it d
On 10/11/05, Alfie John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does Perl6 support multiline comments?
Yes, in the form of pod blocks.
=begin comment
=end comment
They nest, too.
Luke
Hi (),
This is probably a stupid question, but I can't find anything from
google:
Does Perl6 support multiline comments?
Alfie John
please move this thread to the mlc list.
thanx,
uri
--
Uri Guttman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.sysarch.com
SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting
The Perl Books Page --- http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books
The Best
Jarkko Hietaniemi said
> What's wrong with stealing from C/C++/Java instead
> of trying to invent our own?
>
> In other words, what's wrong with /* ... */?
For one thing this would break (looking for zero or many slashes, x, y and
zero to many zs):
if (/\/*xyz*/) { ... };
Perl has gotten its
ike you said, we really can't use // anyway, as it's valid
> Perl code and actually semi-frequently used.
>
> I do agree that there's a lot to be said for using /* ... */ for multiline
> comments, but then I'm a C programmer.
>
> --
> Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTE
quently used.
I do agree that there's a lot to be said for using /* ... */ for multiline
comments, but then I'm a C programmer.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
I also confess to liking // more for till-end-of-line comment marker
than #, the hash looks so messy to my eye...of course, // already has
a meaning...
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
I should read what has been said about the matter earlier...but
lacking the time, I'll just shoot:
What's wrong with stealing from C/C++/Java instead
of trying to invent our own?
In other words, what's wrong with /* ... */?
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
#
Of all the variations that I've seen so far (I'm way behind on reading
the list), the one I like the best is:
qc{ multi
line
comment
here }
Second best, but still acceptable would be:
#<# variations just don't seem "perlish" to me. Sorry!
That's just a personal feeling.
If you just have to g
>Tom Christiansen wrote:
>> #if 0
>> ...
>> #endif
>Ahem, has somebody already mentioned -P (perldoc perlrun)?
>If you want 'em, you already got 'em!
I'm in the choir, preacher! IWTFM. :-)/3
--tom
put comments in qc() at - line 5.
|
| One could use qw() or q() for this right now; but those result in
| a value, which under some circumstances causes a warning issuance.
Disclaimer: am not in any way agreeing that there is a need for
multiline comments : ---
The above has one par
owever, proposing syntax like qc, with a single character delemiter, for multiline
comments when the choice of delimiter characters for commenting out random code and
other comments is severely constrained, just might make it hard to adhere to such a
coding discipline. Hence we need more disc
Tom Christiansen wrote:
> #if 0
> ...
> #endif
Ahem, has somebody already mentioned -P (perldoc perlrun)?
If you want 'em, you already got 'em!
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
> Agreed, but neither should perl implement features which make it hard for the
> programmer to stick to that advice.
That sounds reasonable, on first take, but actually I think that
goes against the grain of perl's philosophy, which is to let the
programmer do what she
John Porter wrote:
> Glenn Linderman wrote:
> > Stick with characters in the normal character set of the author of the
> > script, except for forays into the language of the users of the script.
>
> Good advice for the programmer, perhaps; but it should not be perl's
> job to enforce that discipl
Glenn Linderman wrote:
> Stick with characters in the normal character set of the author of the
> script, except for forays into the language of the users of the script.
Good advice for the programmer, perhaps; but it should not be perl's
job to enforce that discipline.
--
John Porter
The message below gives the context for this diatribe.
A perl script is probably written in a particular language, probably for
users of that language, possibly for users of a second language. Unless
there are lots of I18N type features added into Perl to allow extracting
all string constants fr
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 4:58 PM
To: Michael Mathews
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: multiline comments
>The way I see it Santa (aka Larry) has asked for our wish list. This is not
>the time to dwell on all the ways we can make due with our old toys.
I still
>The way I see it Santa (aka Larry) has asked for our wish list. This is not
>the time to dwell on all the ways we can make due with our old toys.
I still think saying :10,20s/^/##XXX## / is the cleanest and most
visually apparent block comment.
>PS I'm all for a new list. How do I get one?
I s
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 03:00:04PM -0400, Michael Mathews wrote:
> Ted Ashton wrote:
> > The qc()
> > proposal fits in well with the Perl "look-and-feel" and seems pretty
> > comfortable to me. If there are concerns about obfuscatory potential, a
> > use strict 'comments' could require that the q
quot;Tom Christiansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael Mathews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Nick Ing-Simmons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: multiline comments
>
>Tom Christiansen wrote:
>> > comment <>
>> Smack--the lexer cowers before you!
>Well, hey, while we're daydreaming... :-)
I suppose I should have written
The lexer misses!
You hit--More--the lexer cowers before you.
--tom
Tom Christiansen wrote:
> > comment <
> Smack--the lexer cowers before you!
Well, hey, while we're daydreaming... :-)
--
John Porter
>Proposal: here-docs specified with regexes, and no special
>meaning for newlines.
> comment <
Michael Mathews wrote:
>
> > if (0) {
> > }
>
> 1) what if the block contains syntax errors?
> 2) what if the bloack contains unmatched braces?
> 3) this is not easier to type or remember than the currently available
> workarounds.
TIMTOWTDI.
--
John Porter
Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> I still like this solution prototype:
>
> sub comment($) { }
>
> comment <<"END OF FIRST COMMENT";
> asdf
> asdf
> asdf
> asdf
> asdf
> END OF FIRST COMMENT
So do I. Actually, here-docs can be a bit unwieldy, what with the
requirement for the e
>> What is wrong with
>>
>> if (0) {
>>
>> }
>1) what if the block contains syntax errors?
Then the compiler carefully and courteously notifies you of such.
>2) what if the bloack contains unmatched braces?
See above.
>3) this is not easier to type or remember than the currently available
>
>What is wrong with
> if (0) {
> }
>(and of course teaching op builder not to build them in this case).
Funny, I was going to mention that I always use
#if 0
...
#endif
in C for nesting, block comments. Which is rare anyway, rarer perhaps
than this discussion would seem to mer
> What is wrong with
>
> if (0) {
>
> }
1) what if the block contains syntax errors?
2) what if the bloack contains unmatched braces?
3) this is not easier to type or remember than the currently available
workarounds.
>This seems like an acceptable variation on what has been suggested so far. I
>deally one would be able to safely block comment any large section of a Perl
>6 script and not worry about any other block comments within (the outermost
>block comment takes precedence).
I still like this solution pro
Michael Mathews wrote:
>
> So this should work in Perl 6
>
> code here;
> #<
> # this is a single line comment
> $foo = $a + $b #< here's an in-line comment ># + $c * $d;
> >#
> more code here;
If starting in column 1 is going to be magic, you may as well
make the magic char #, so:
#<
Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>The one concern I would raise about this is that a common use of multi-line
>comments is to dyke out code.
What is wrong with
if (0) {
}
(and of course teaching op builder not to build them in this case).
--
Nick Ing-Simmons
Glenn Linderman wrote:
> >
> > qc( Here's a quick comment which actually contains
> > qc( another comment )
> > within it
> > );
>
> This type of comment will not comment out arbitrary text.
> In particular, it might have problems with text containing
> mismatched (){}<>.
This is alre
Ted Ashton wrote
> > 2) Also this proposition fails in one of my goals, which was to allow
> > arbitrary nesting of multiline comments. I believe this would be true
for
> > any function based solution.
>
> Negative. If you use paired delimiters you're ok.
>
&g
Glenn Linderman wrote:
>$foo = $a + $b #< can this be an in-line comment? ># + $c * $d;
>
> Note that with this scheme it would be possible to allow in-line comments
to be
> multi-line comments, or possible to prevent that. I'd vote in favor of
keeping
> in-line comments on a single line.
>
Ted Ashton wrote:
> > 2) Also this proposition fails in one of my goals, which was to allow
> > arbitrary nesting of multiline comments. I believe this would be true for
> > any function based solution.
>
> Negative. If you use paired delimiters you're ok.
>
&g
idea how to overcome this?
I've no intention of overcoming this :-). The delimiter above is the / and
should be understood so. The * is a warm fuzzy for C programmers, but as it
might lead the masses astray should probably be avoided.
> 2) Also this proposition fails in one of my goals, wh
Edwin Wiles wrote:
> On the other hand, the stated desire for this is for commenting out
> blocks of code. That might be more achievable with (I forget the right
> name for this) 'compile time directives' such as "#if", "#endif". We'd
> have to use a different opening syntax, since # is already
Michael Mathews wrote:
>
> 2) Also this proposition fails in one of my goals, which was to allow
> arbitrary nesting of multiline comments. I believe this would be true for
> any function based solution.
>
> For example, this should be okay but I don't see how it co
Peter Scott wrote:
> At 02:53 PM 8/2/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
> >Perhaps a better way would be a change in the semantics of scalar
> >literals in void context, to be silently ignored.
>
> No! It's a major typo/bug-catcher.
Strange, my experience does not confirm that one whit.
--
John Por
At 02:53 PM 8/2/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Perhaps a better way would be a change in the semantics of scalar
>literals in void context, to be silently ignored.
No! It's a major typo/bug-catcher.
--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies
quote delimiters of arbitrary length. In
other words the asterisks would currently be treated as part of the quote,
not part of the delimiter. Any idea how to overcome this?
2) Also this proposition fails in one of my goals, which was to allow
arbitrary nesting of multiline comments. I believe this wo
Bart Lateur wrote:
>
> < This is comment!
> And more...
> END_OF_COMMENT
>
> Apart from the warning "Useless use of a constant in void context", it
> works.
Yes; but it was precisely that warning which I was intending to address.
Perhaps a better way would be a change in the semantics of scala
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:51:10 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>> At the risk getting too exotic how about:
>>
>> #<> some
>> comments
>> EOC
>
>Just introduce a new function which is a bit bucket:
>
> # works in perl5.
> sub comment(@) { }
>
> comment q{ comments... };
"Function"? Who needs a functi
Ted Ashton wrote:
> The qc()
> proposal fits in well with the Perl "look-and-feel" and seems pretty
> comfortable to me. If there are concerns about obfuscatory potential, a
> use strict 'comments' could require that the qc( opening start in column one.
I think qc() should be allowed to look l
>It nice to be able to bounce on % in vi, too:
>=#{
>comment
>=#}
You easy to do this already:
=begin comment {
=end comment }
--tom
Michael Mathews wrote:
>
> At the risk getting too exotic how about:
>
> #< some
> comments
> EOC
Just introduce a new function which is a bit bucket:
# works in perl5.
sub comment(@) { }
comment q{ comments... };
comment <
Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> The one concern I would raise about this is that a common use of multi-line
> comments is to dyke out code. As such, it is handy to have the start and
> end markers different, and allow nesting.
It nice to be able to bounce on % in vi, too:
=#{
comment
=#}
--
John
Thus it was written in the epistle of Michael Mathews,
> If don't think multiline comments are worthwhile, then we should leave it
> out. But I don't see the point in arguing that a functionality should be
> kept out of the language because it can be added to the Text
If don't think multiline comments are worthwhile, then we should leave it
out. But I don't see the point in arguing that a functionality should be
kept out of the language because it can be added to the Text-Editing
software!!
I am not really arguing about single-line comments anyw
Buddha Buck wrote:
> The one concern I would raise about this is that a common use of
multi-line
> comments is to dyke out code. As such, it is handy to have the start and
> end markers different, and allow nesting
I see your point. At the risk getting too exotic how about:
#<
to use a
>certain type of editor.
If you are using an underpowered word-processor instead of a
programmers' editor, this is a personal problem of yours which you
should not expect Perl to solve.
>I disagree that the "only" use of multiline comments is to (temporarily)
>disab
At 10:55 AM 8/2/00 -0400, Michael Mathews wrote:
>I am prone to agree with this. I would be willing to promote the requirement
>of starting and ending multiline comments on their own line. Maybe something
>like this (this will not work in Perl 5):
>
>code to execute
>=#
editor.
I disagree that the "only" use of multiline comments is to (temporarily)
disable a piece of code. Again we should not presume to force programmers to
do anything just one way.
--Michael
"Michael Mathews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unlike many programming languages Perl does not currently implement true
> multiline comments. This can be confusing/tedious to programmers.
I fail to see this. What is confusing?
As has been pointed out earlier, with multi-l
Tom Christiansen responded:
> One argument *against* intra-token-sequence multiline comments is that
they
> are harder to see, and thus render readers of the code more prone to
> misunderstand it. Is this worth really promoting?
> Settling on one
> pod target for multiline com
John Porter wrote:
>
> Michael Mathews wrote:
> > Using a two-character syntax to start and end a multiline comment seems to
> > be a good way to satisfy both the desired similarity to "#" and the desired
> > uniqueness to avoid collision with real single-line quotes. I would suggest
> > a (# man
One argument *against* intra-token-sequence multiline comments is that they
are harder to see, and thus render readers of the code more prone to
misunderstand it. Is this worth really promoting?
The extant pod-based multiline comment solution does not suffer from this,
as it is quite easy to
t;
So rather than making a list of things I am used to, or things that I don't
think are that bad, I chose to look at Perl with fresh eyes. I considered
other programming languages I use. I tried to recall the things that made
Perl so hard for me to learn, back in the beginning. Lack of mul
Plus you're still running à la pod mode, not à la code mode,
as mentioned on p630 of PP3. (I just looked to make sure multiline
comments were in the index. They are.)
--tom
>I apologize if this has already been gone over but I would really like to
>throw one out there: real Multi-line comments.
>This one has been bugging me for a long time. Any ideas?
>How about #/ lots of lines of code here, this is not backwards compatable,
>however /#
Do you really think
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, John Barnette wrote:
> Michael Fowler wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 05:28:08PM -0400, Michael Mathews wrote:
> > > Unlike many programming languages Perl does not currently implement true
> > > multiline comments. This can be confusing/tedious
Michael Fowler wrote:
> I'm not sure exactly what you consider to be a "true multiline comment", but
> Perl definitely has them by my definition.
>
> =pod
>
> Hi, this is a multiline comment.
>
> =cut
...and there are a lot WORSE ways to do this in current Perl:
sub multiline-comment {}
mul
al Message -
From: "Michael Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: RFC: multiline comments
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 05:28:08PM -0400, Michael Mathews wrote:
> Unlike many programming languages Perl does not currently implement true
>
Michael Fowler wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 05:28:08PM -0400, Michael Mathews wrote:
> > Unlike many programming languages Perl does not currently implement true
> > multiline comments. This can be confusing/tedious to programmers. This could
> > be solved by adding a
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 05:28:08PM -0400, Michael Mathews wrote:
> Unlike many programming languages Perl does not currently implement true
> multiline comments. This can be confusing/tedious to programmers. This could
> be solved by adding a syntax to Perl 6 that would allow for true
John Porter wrote:
> qc( here's some text which will evaluate to "silent undef". );
> Could be very much like qw() ...
Cool, I like the perlishness of your proposal. But not so sure about "qc".
Would this be a function? Why would it be a function? What would qc imply,
"quote comment"? This is co
Michael Mathews wrote:
>
> =head2 Proposal
>
> Using a two-character syntax to start and end a multiline comment seems to
> be a good way to satisfy both the desired similarity to "#" and the desired
> uniqueness to avoid collision with real single-line quotes. I would suggest
> a (# many lines
Okay, so no one seemed to be offended at my original post/suggestion -- must
mean I should try to take it a little further :)
Here's the RFC in POD even.
--Michael
=head1 TITLE
Multiline Comments for Perl.
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Michael J. Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
D
I apologize if this has already been gone over but I would really like to
throw one out there: real Multi-line comments.
This one has been bugging me for a long time. Any ideas?
How about #/ lots of lines of code here, this is not backwards compatable,
however /#
--Michael
93 matches
Mail list logo
