John Castura wrote:
> I was thinking about the discussion re: escape characters and wondered whether
> some redundancy could be useful for designers over the long run. If $foo is defined
> ("Gibreel") and $bar is undefined, we could have:
>
> $foo -> Gibreel
> $\foo -> $foo
> $\\foo -> $\foo
>
> $bar -> $bar
> $\bar -> $bar (rather than $\bar)
> $\\bar -> $\bar (rather than $\\bar)
This is perfect. Exactly what I was thinking, but forgot about the
$\bar output case, and $\\bar does it.
It means that we have a nice parallel to $!bar, and the conventional
notion of escape disappears.
I was off down the path of \$bar -> $bar, \\$bar-> \<bar>, \\\$bar ->
\$bar ,etc and actually have it working for references and pluggable
directives. When I figured out how the defined directives (#set, #if)
would work, I went to bed....
> (Of course, this idea would be the same regardless of the escape
> characters that are eventually decided upon.)
I think that \ is a great 'escape' character, since that is
conventional.
> Anyways, I may not be thinking about this correctly, but I thought I'd throw
> in my 2 cents...
You are thinking (at least to me) 100% correctly, although it may be us
two vs. quite a crowd :0
(We can take 'em)
Lets hear it folks. I want to put this to bed.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes Mr. Bush, Social Security *is* a federal program.
