2016-08-29 10:58 GMT+02:00 Thierry Goubier <[email protected]>:

> Hi Stef,
>
> 2016-08-29 8:35 GMT+02:00 stepharo <[email protected]>:
>
>> This is a really nice and important question.
>> I would really have a clear answer because it will make the system more
>> stable.
>>
>> If you can build an analysis and let us know it would be really great.
>>
>>
>> Something related but not on the same topic is that I would love to have
>> a syntax for nested comments.
>>
>> This is really annoying to have to uncomment parts when we have to
>> comment a large part. We discussed this back in 2007-2009 but we never did
>> it.
>>
>
> If your need is that (uncomment while commenting and the reverse), then
> the answer is not a syntax change, but a better comment/uncomment command
> in the editor.
>
> Now that you say that, I also have the issue. I'll have a try in
> AltBrowser if I can get the behavior you'd like.
>

That works, but:

- Single click select doesn't work very well (stops at the next double
quotes instead of the end double quote)

- The formatter likes to split double quotes (adding returns)

- Backporting that to a standard editor is a mess, because there is a need
to change the #enclose: method.

Syntax wise, one could consider "" to be inside a comment (i.e. do not
split into two comments if encountered inside a comment, as it is done now).

Thierry



>
> Thierry
>
>
>>
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>
>> Le 28/8/16 à 12:17, Nicolai Hess a écrit :
>>
>> Hi,
>>>
>>> where can I find a good reference about what characters are allowed as
>>> binary selectors (from old syntax definition) and what is nowadays
>>> allowed
>>> by the implementations.
>>>
>>> And whether the current set of allowed binaries selector includes some
>>> additions on
>>> purpose or if this is just a bug of the parser.
>>>
>>> From what I found out,  (Blue book and some other smalltalk syntax
>>> definitions)
>>> the current set of allowed characters includes the "special characters":
>>> $! $% $& $* $+ $, $- $/ $< $= $> $? $@ $\ $| $~
>>> (some implementation do not allow $@ and some calls $- not a special
>>> character
>>> but allowed as binary selector character)
>>>
>>> And this is what String>>#numArgs uses. Therefore
>>>
>>> '-' numArgs "->1".
>>> '!' numArgs "->1".
>>> And for example:
>>> '§' numArgs "-> -1 (the -1 is indicating "not even a valid selector")"
>>>
>>> But I am interested in the characters not called "special characters and
>>> not even in the range 0-126.
>>>
>>> The scanner allowes much more characters to be used as a selector name
>>> (From the scanners typeTable) :
>>>
>>> {Character value: 1 . Character value: 2 . Character value: 3 .
>>> Character value: 4 . Character value: 5 . Character value: 6 . Character
>>> value: 7 . Character backspace . Character value: 11 . Character value: 14
>>> . Character value: 15 . Character value: 16 . Character value: 17 .
>>> Character value: 18 . Character value: 19 . Character value: 20 . Character
>>> value: 21 . Character value: 22 . Character value: 23 . Character value: 24
>>> . Character value: 25 . Character value: 26 . Character escape . Character
>>> value: 28 . Character value: 29 . Character value: 30 . Character value: 31
>>> . $! . $% . $& . $* . $+ . $, . $- . $/ . $< . $= . $> . $? . $@ . $\ . $`
>>> . $~ . Character delete . $€ . $ . $‚ . $ƒ . $„ . $… . $† . $‡ . $ˆ . $‰ .
>>> $Š . $‹ . $Œ . $ . $Ž . $ . $ . $‘ . $’ . $“ . $” . $• . $– . $— . $˜ . $™
>>> . $š . $› . $œ . $ . $ž . $Ÿ . $  . $¡ . $¢ . $£ . $¤ . $¥ . $¦ . $§ . $¨ .
>>> $© . $« . $¬ . $­ . $® . $¯ . $° . $± . $² . $³ . $´ . $¶ . $· . $¸ . $¹ .
>>> $» . $¼ . $½ . $¾ . $¿ . $× . $÷}
>>>
>>> This means you can define a method with for example the name "÷".
>>>
>>> So , the question I want to ask. What do we want to allow as a binary
>>> selector (character).
>>> All that is nowadays "parseable" as binary selector, or only the set of
>>> "special characters"
>>> or something between both, and where to put this information, the "this
>>> is an allowed binary
>>> selector character" information?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Nicolai
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to