On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 02:26:28AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 8/19/06, Aaron Crane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You don't actually need a macro in that case:
> >
> >if 0 { q<
> >...
> >> }
>
> Which, of course, eliminates the original desire to have a
> code-commenting constru
On 8/20/06, Joshua Hoblitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is exactly the type of construct that I had in mind. A couple of
questions. Is code inside of a #{}:
- parsed and required to be syntacticly correct?
No. It's a comment. # followed by one or more open bracket characters
creates a
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 10:50:31AM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
> > #{
> >if $baz {
> >$foo.bar
> >}
> > }
> >
> > To uncomment, remove the # before the {.
>
> This is exactly the type of construct that I had in mind. A couple of
> questions. Is code inside of a #{}:
>
> - p
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 10:50:31AM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
: On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 02:26:28AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: > On 8/19/06, Aaron Crane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > >You don't actually need a macro in that case:
: > >
: > >if 0 { q<
: > >...
: > >> }
: >
: > Wh
On 8/20/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 10:50:31AM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
> > #{
> >if $baz {
> >$foo.bar
> >}
> > }
> >
> > To uncomment, remove the # before the {.
>
> This is exactly the type of construct that I had in mind. A coupl
On 8/20/06, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I think you are being too picky.
[snip snarky sarcastic rant]
Hmm, perhaps I'm feeling edgy. Or maybe some of the comments reminded
me of those rediculously long, whiny threads. Anyway, that was
un-called-for.
Luke
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 03:55:56PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> >The important question here is this one:
> >
> > - when 'uncommented', is it a no-op?
> >
> >Which isn't true for #{}/{}, because {} introduces new lexical
> >scope.
> Why would you care about introducing a new lexical scope? You wou
