inlined "here" strings
Ray Blaak
(11 Jul 2005 16:26 UTC)
|
Re: inlined "here" strings Matthew Flatt (12 Jul 2005 13:11 UTC)
|
Re: inlined "here" strings
Ray Blaak
(13 Jul 2005 06:43 UTC)
|
Re: inlined "here" strings
bburger@xxxxxx
(13 Jul 2005 14:50 UTC)
|
Re: inlined "here" strings
Michael Sperber
(14 Jul 2005 07:13 UTC)
|
Re: inlined "here" strings
Ray Blaak
(14 Jul 2005 15:41 UTC)
|
Re: inlined "here" strings Matthew Flatt 12 Jul 2005 13:11 UTC
At Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:25:17 -0700, Ray Blaak wrote: > If yyou remove the requirement to have the here "key" to be followed by > a newline, then you allow the possibility in inline here strings. > > Consider some Scheme code that populates the registry: > > (registry-set-key #<<"HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\foo\bar..." #<<!!some > abitrary text that does not have two bangs!!) > > as opposed to the more tedious: > > (registry-set-key #<<"HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE > \foo\bar... > " > #<<!! > some abitrary text that does not have two bangs > !! > ) In the above examples, I'm not sure how the parser would know that the inline variants are meant to be inline. Scsh supports #< (as opposed to #<<) followed by a single-character terminator for inline here strings. I think the conclusion among the authors was that they weren't nearly as useful as multi-line here strings, and below the threshold for inclusion. We're interested to hear, of course, how many people would like inline here strings, and how many would prefer to keep here strings out of the language. Matthew