> De: "Brian Goetz" <brian.go...@oracle.com> > À: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> > Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Samedi 6 Avril 2019 18:14:00 > Objet: Re: String reboot (plain text)
> Yes, because when I said “these are for the later part of the discussion, > we’re > going to leave it to sit until then”, what I meant of course was “please post > your opinions on it now”… ok, ok, no syntax, what i should have said is that any prefix/suffix will do the job. I understand that you want to separate the steps and build a consensus, i think we are spending a lot of time on the raw part, we should decide a syntax and move to the real question, do we offer support for alignment directly in the language or not ? Rémi >> On Apr 6, 2019, at 11:52 AM, Remi Forax < [ mailto:fo...@univ-mlv.fr | >> fo...@univ-mlv.fr ] > wrote: >> I lke the r prefix because most people think the r prefix means regular >> expression. >> Rémi >>> De: "Brian Goetz" < [ mailto:brian.go...@oracle.com | >>> brian.go...@oracle.com ] > >>> À: "amber-spec-experts" < [ mailto:amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net | >>> amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net ] > >>> Envoyé: Samedi 6 Avril 2019 17:47:25 >>> Objet: Fwd: String reboot (plain text) >>> Received on amber-spec-comments. These are mostly comments on syntax options >>> that are for later parts of the discussion, so I’m reading them into the >>> record >>> now, and we’re going to leave them to sit until then. >>> High-order summary: >>> - Please consider prefixes a”…” for auto-align and r”…” for raw. >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> From: Stephen Colebourne < [ mailto:scolebou...@joda.org | >>>> scolebou...@joda.org >>>> ] > >>>> Subject: Re: String reboot (plain text) >>>> Date: March 21, 2019 at 11:14:53 AM EDT >>>> To: [ mailto:amber-spec-comme...@openjdk.java.net | >>>> amber-spec-comme...@openjdk.java.net ] >>>> Cc: Brian Goetz < [ mailto:brian.go...@oracle.com | brian.go...@oracle.com >>>> ] > >>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 17:52, Brian Goetz < [ >>>> mailto:brian.go...@oracle.com | >>>> brian.go...@oracle.com ] > wrote: >>>>> So, in the spirit of “keep ordering until sated, but stop there”, here >>>>> are some >>>>> reasonable choices. >>>>> 1. Do multi-line (escaped) strings with a “”” fixed delimiter. Large >>>>> benefit, >>>>> small cost. Most embedded snippets don’t need any escaping. Low cost, big >>>>> payoff. >>>>> 1a. Do 1, but automatically reflow multi-line strings using the >>>>> equivalent of >>>>> String::align. There have been reasonable proposals on how to do this; >>>>> where >>>>> they fell apart is the interaction with raw-ness, but if we separate ML >>>>> and >>>>> raw, these become reasonable again. Higher cost, but higher payoff; having >>>>> separated the interaction with raw strings, this is more defensible. >>>>> 2. Do (1) or (1a), and add: single-line raw string literals delimited by >>>>> \”…”\. >>>>> 2a. Do (1) or (1a), and also support multi-line raw string literals >>>>> (where we >>>>> _don’t_ automatically apply String::align; this can be done manually). >>>>> Note >>>>> that this creates anomalies for multi-line raw string literals starting >>>>> with >>>>> quotes (this can be handled with concatenation, and having separated ML >>>>> and >>>>> raw, this is less of a problem than before). >>>>> 3. Do (2) and (2a), and also support a repeating compound delimiter with >>>>> multiple backslashes and a quote. >>>> My views have not changed dramatically from my last mail [1]. As per >>>> these options, I think the language would benefit from 1, 1a, 2 and 2a >>>> type changes. I think the choice between 1 and 1a is a false one. I'm >>>> not convinced 3 is worth pursuing. >>>> I agree that triple double-quote is the right mechanism for multi-line >>>> strings - an obvious direction for Java. I'm happy to accept 1 on its >>>> own *providing that 1a can be added later*. My preference is for """ >>>> to be the delimiter for non-aligned multi-line strings, and for a >>>> single letter prefix 'a' to be used for aligned strings, eg. a""" ... >>>> """ >>>> For raw strings I personally find the syntax /" ... "/ or /""" ... >>>> """/ unpleasant. While the argument of "distributing the escape over >>>> the string" makes some sense in the abstract, the result is not >>>> appealing to read. Given that I believe aligned and non-aligned >>>> strings should be separated by a single letter prefix, I believe that >>>> raw strings and non-raw strings should also be separated by a single >>>> letter prefix: >>>> """ - multi-line with-escapes & non-aligned >>>> a""" - multi-line with-escapes & aligned >>>> r""" - multi-line raw & non-aligned >>>> ra""" - multi-line raw & aligned >>>> " - single-line with-escapes >>>> r" - single-line raw >>>> And yes, I do think you can have raw and aligned as a combination. I >>>> think using prefix letters is more extensible, more orthogonal and >>>> clearer than using /""" ... """/. >>>> thanks >>>> Stephen >>>> [1] [ >>>> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-dev/2019-January/003850.html >>>> | >>>> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-dev/2019-January/003850.html >>>> ]
