From: Brian I. <in...@tt...> - 2002-05-18 03:56:42
|
On 17/05/02 19:18 -0400, Clark C . Evans wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 04:45:25PM -0400, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: > | - We need an approach for enumerated types... > | and if we do have one, why not apply it > | to booleans? > > Hmm. For readability a nice way to do enumerations > would be very neat. > > | caching: |true > | caching: ~true > | caching: *true > | caching: &true > | caching: !true All these require at least some lookahead to work. I would argue that '|' and '~' are ok. '~true' especially. it could never mean null, and you'd need to regex at least 2 bytes into the token anyway. > > These are block, null, alias, anchor, family respectively. > > | caching: %true > | caching: $true > | caching: @true > > These are probably too close to Perl's abbreviations. Plus they are butt ugly for this context. > > | caching: ?true > | caching: :true > > The colon and question already have other meanings. > > | caching: =true > | caching: \true > > Hmmm. > > | caching: ^true > > Perhaps. > > | caching: :true # I'd rather have this in my config file > | caching: !bool 1 # than this. Don't you agree? > > Hmm. I think the latter is more clear. Um, why are we having this discussion at this point anyway? I can count on zero hands how many fully compliant and funtional implementations exist today. Cheers, Brian |