 | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney
|
| | | (...) Cool. Although I don't have that much (if any) of a say in punctuation/no punctuation, I could go either way. I still prefer no punctuation, to keep it consistent with the way it's been done before. BUT - can't always get hung up on the past (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Kevin Clague
|
| | | | (...) I think we cannot ignore the backwards compatibility issue though. What we want is an explicit way to differentiate comments from meta-commands. I think defining an explicit mechanism for comments is completely backward compatible, because if (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | (...) right. (...) but you just said you're doing that anyway - "if you do not recognize the first token in a line type 0 record, it is a comment". Is adding '{META}' to the list of recognizable tokens an issue? Also, you don't have to add it - if (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Kevin Clague
|
| | | | (...) The exact same argment can be used in favor of dillineated comments. ;-) (...) Nope. Any program that does not recognize // (picking one as an example) simply ignores it. Just like (META). (...) I don't want to get sidetracked here, but (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | (...) As I tried to indicate in one of my posts much earlier in this thread, I realized after my original post that the presense of the {} would negate the need for a {META} tag. It would probably work just as well with (). The whole reason I (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Kevin Clague
|
| | | | | (...) Ah, I see the confusion. In saying //, what I really meant was "0 //", where // is the meta-command that means comment. Rather than place all new meta-commands in <>, or (), or {}, I'd rather have a token that means "the rest of this line is a (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | (...) If tags were the way to go, I agree. BUT, ultimately I side with Kevin, just add comment marks, not meta-command ones. I think that option makes the most sense. But as Dan also said, I'm not a programmer who will be implementing this, so I (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | (...) We already have a standard comment prefix: 0. For better or for worse, meta-commands are just comments that get interpreted to have meaning. I think it's unrealistic to expect users to remember to add a second comment prefix in addition to the (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | | | (...) True. That's why I suggested a strong recommendation of using whatever comment prefix we will agree on. Then let's say the future L3P -check will raise a warning for omitting that prefix. /Tore (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | | "Travis Cobbs" <tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com> skrev i meddelandet news:HBvHFv.1x9E@lugnet.com... (...) This is not at all uncommon in programming languages, take Pascal for example (UCSD-Pascal, Delphi): A comment can be (* any characters except the (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
