Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie 10 Jan 2005 01:02 UTC
> From: "Bradd W. Szonye" <xxxxxx@szonye.com> > 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). Huh? arguably a# is a symbol, followed by a ; comment rest of line. > 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. Huh? '(a b c) or (a 'b c) applies to the prepended lexical s-expr, just as #;(a b c) or (a #;b c) should. (if I've used the term token in place of symbol, which is an <s-exp>, I apologize my mistake). The proposed #; should essentially lexically remove the <s-exp> it's prepended to (as it's scope is lexically determined that way), just as ' "quotes" the <s-exp> it's prepended to; don't see any rational reason to otherwise break the scheme's syntactic/lexical scoping conventions presumed by similar reader abbreviation conventions. The very notion of (#;#; a b c) => ( c ) ; sends chills down my spine; as it would seem hard to think of a worse syntactic/lexical scoping abomination/hack for scheme to adopt. (again, just an opinion).