I meant string literals. But comments as well. Andrej Mitrovic Wrote:
> Heh. I'd rather want text editors to use syntax highlighting on comments as > well, but use a different background color. Then I would know it's a comment > but it would also make any embedded code in the comment actually readable. > > bearophile < [email protected]> Wrote: > > > Andrej Mitrovic: > > > > > I'm sorry, but what does q{..} mean? > > > > q{} is just a different syntax to write "" or `` > > > > It's a controversial feature. q{} isn't recognized by editors as a string, > > so they colour the syntax it contains normally as code, and not as a > > string. So it's a bit useful if you want to give a string to a higher order > > function like map, instead of a delegate, and you want to keep the visual > > illusion of a delegate: > > > > map!q{a * a}([1, 2, 3]) > > > > The problem comes straight from its purpose: is that it doesn't look like a > > string, so its true nature is a bit hidden; and this may cause some > > troubles. > > > > Another possible problem was discussed when the q{} syntax was introduced. > > It's not a clean syntax, it's a hack from the point of view of > > parsing/lexing too. > > > > It's handy, but it may cause troubles too. I am getting used to it, but > > it's a untidy hack and it will keep being nothing more than a hack. And > > sometimes hacks later come back and bite your bum. > > > > Bye, > > bearophile >
