Glenn Linderman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> An idea that produces a paired feeling would be to use one of the
> paired character pairs, as in "#<" and ">#".
> ...the three paired character possibilities ("<>", "()", "{}")
There is at least one more: "[]".
And the Perlish thing to do would be to allow any of them, right?
#[ one comment #< nested inside ># another one. ]#
> The competing suggestion for in-line comments was
> to define "qc/comment/" as a syntax that evaporates. I don't like
> that syntax, because it looks more like code than comment,
It *is* code. It's code that evaporates, which makes it a comment, too.
> $foo = qw/foo bar/ qc/eat me/;
>
> It is not clear whether such syntax would be easily readable within all
> forms of expressions, without operators, as shown in the above example,
> vs
>
> $foo = qw/foo bar/ #<eat me>#;
It stands out as much as you want it to, which might be a lot, or none.
$foo = qw/foo bar/ qc<############# EAT ME ################>;
Frankly, if I'm scanning source for comments, I'm more likely to be
looking for the string of interest, e.g. "eat me", than the tiny bit
of syntax that creates the comment. And #<># is surely a tiny bit
of syntax. (Or else I let my editor look for comments; and /qc is
no harder to type than /#<.)
Plus it has the advantage of not introducing any new syntax, only
the qc// operator.
But this has all been said before, and I apologize.
--
John Porter
