Greg Jaxon wrote: [...] > SV has a little bit of context-dependent lexical analysis that could complicate > this. The string "\n " and the quoted escaped identifier `"\n `" bear watching. Yes. We had exactly this discussion here. In fact that was partially what motivated the other suggestion that Eric made -- to permit adjacent string concatenation. Allowing that makes it easier to write safe macros that build up strings using '" and which contain \n. `define buildline(a) `"a`""\n" becomes quite reasonable, safe, and unambiguous. If we don't allow adjacent string concatenation, it becomes much more important to figure out what to do with \n and similar. I think that if we allow adjacent strings then we can likely ignore issues related to \n (et al) and just treat them as escaped identifiers when they occur outside a literal string. If we have to encode rules to determine *which* \n interpretation to make, I think we're going to end up being unhappy. Gord. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Nov 21 07:37:04 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 21 2007 - 07:37:55 PST