Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Bradd W. Szonye 10 Jan 2005 00:05 UTC
Paul Schlie wrote: > Personally I believe this is not a good idea, it's neither > syntactically consistent with scheme, nor visually expected: more > simply and consistently I would expect a #; comment to lexically > remove the expression/token it's been lexically prepended to, nothing > else. (including white-space). i.e.: > > ... (a #; b #;c) => (a b) Why? That's a token comment, not an s-expression comment, and it seems to serve no useful purpose (unless you intend to support token-pasting a la (a#; b) => (ab), which is IMO a very bad idea). I do agree that it'd be somewhat more intuitive if #; worked more like QUOTE, with (#;#;foo bar) being equivalent to (#;(#;foo) bar) rather than (#;foo #;bar). However, this idea of commenting tokens instead of s-expressions seems like a very bad idea. -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd