On 19/09/02 10:12 +0300, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote:
> > ---
> > # Comment
> > #Comment
> > ###Comment
> > #Comment
> > foo: #comment
> > bar:#content: baz#content #comment
> So, you want '#' to start a common if and only if it is preceded by
> As opposed to today's rule it must both be preceded by and followed by them?
> > This seems to cause no problems. Putting an artificial
> > restriction on comments by requiring a space where it's not
> > ambiguous, is a mistake.
> Ambiguity was never a concern here. The question was expressive power and
> intent. When someone writes #bloop, does he mean a comment (as in your
> example above) or does he mean a token (as, for example, in Smalltalk)?
Well, first of all :bloop and #bloop should be quoted IMHO.
I think we'd be remiss if #bloop were content here:
> The current spec assumes the latter. Since '#' comments are meant for human
> consumption, the vast majority of them are written with a following space,
> because that's the readable way of writing them - at least in my experience.
In practice, if I'm commenting something out, I'm gonna forget the space most
times. And in an example like this it would be infuriating:
What else could this be?
> This allows us the let #bloop be content (just like :bloop is). I think
> that's best; it gives us more expressive power and it more consistent with
> the way that other indicators (: ,) are interpreted.
> So again I'd rather just leave things as they are.
Let's get some more opinions here.