Op 2019-07-04 om 07:34 schreef Sven Barth via fpc-devel:
But the main question is: do we actually want a multiline string ?
As far as I am concerned, that question needs to be answered first,
and for
me personally the answer to that is still a resounding "no".
Me too. Mostly overrated IMHO, and ugly as sin exception on general
rules.
Also goes for comments, but those have been in for a long time, so
that is a bit moot.
You are aware that Pascal contained multi line comments (both "(* ...
*)" and "{ ... }") before single line comments "// ... " where added?
Yes. And also that FPC changed them to nest with same time, which
Borland style does not.
Though I also don't understand why you think multi line comments are
overrated.
I meant multiline literal strings are overrated as feature, the reasons
against multiline literal strings, besides that I'm in general against
dialect divergence and complication are:
- not really that often needed. Should every hypothetical need or
foreign language feature automatically trigger additonal syntax? IMHO No.
- Quite heavy feature because it burdens the language with a concept
that spans lines, with the usual strange errors on wrong lines resulting
from it if unbalanced. One of the core things I like about Pascal is
that its errors are usually in the right line.
- Basically a shorthand, the solution with + works fine. There also
could be $includefileasstring or something, one of the few extensions in
recent years that I have been in favor of.
In conclusion: it is a solution in search of a problem, with bad
behaviour in errorhandling (when unbalanced the compiler errors on
perfectly fine code in the wrong place after whatever ' closes the
unbalanced ) on top of it.
This is why the feature goes against the grain of Pascal IMHO.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
