On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 01:31, James Reeves <weavejes...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> What if you need to use braces? It seems to me that any syntax for
> representing long strings needs a terminator that is unlikely to occur
> within the string itself. For example, Python uses """, and XML CDATA
> uses ]]>, both of which are character sequences unlikely to turn up in
> a string. By contrast, an ending brace } is not rare enough to be used
> as a terminator, IMO.

Yes, please. I'd like to pile on here with a few ideas and questions

(0) I'm not feeling the itch for verbatim strings, seeing as clojure
already does multi-line literals (with escaping) and has special
syntax for regex patterns.

(1) If it's all the same to everyone else, just use python's
triple-quotes. In practice, they work well enough, but if we're using
them for verbatim strings there still wouldn't be a way to embed, e.g.
a code fragment demonstrating use of a raw string in a a raw string.
Is this so terrible?

(2) Perlish/Sedish choose-your-own-quote has always struck me as an
ugly hack. More important though are worries about making tooling more
complicated:

How much more complex would this make, e.g. correct syntax
highlighting in emacs, in eclipse?
What about tools that wish to read clojure code as data but are not
themselves clojure? We wouldn't be doing them any favors by
unnecessarily complicating the surface syntax.

(3) Perhaps something akin to Lua's approach (mentioned previously in
this thread) could address the limitations of (1) without the uglyness
of (2).

Just my 2c
Ben

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to