Walter wrote:
> Currently, there are 3 kinds of string literals:
> 'string' : wysiwyg strings
> "string" : escaped strings
> \ : single character strings
> 
> There is no character literal syntax; 1 character long strings are
> implicitly converted to character literals based on context. Unfortunately,
> this leads to ambiguities with no reasonable way out (other than crafting
> arbitrary and confusing rules).
> 
> So, I've been thinking of going back to the C way and having ' ' for
> character literals. That means that wysiwyg strings are left without a
> lexical syntax. Any ideas for something that would look nice? How about
> using back quotes ` `, or is that just too hard to distinguish in certain
> fonts? One thing to keep in mind is that wysiwyg strings are not going to be
> used with nearly the same frequency as escaped strings, so the syntax can be
> a bit less convenient for them.

I like r"string", which is used in a number of languages already.

"DeadCow" <deadcow-remove-this@free.fr> wrote in message news:bfuit9$bnr$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> what about a perl-like quotation ?
>
> s (for string?) followed by any character as delimiter.
>
> s/.../
> s#...#
> s%...%
> s!...!
>
> So you can choose the delimiter to avoid escaping.
>
> ok it's a bit ugly.

<g>

> can the lexer handle this kind of backward reference ?

Yes.

"Patrick Down" <pat@codemoon.com> wrote in message news:Xns93C480D51FA3Dpatcodemooncom@63.105.9.61...
> Python uses """ for multi line strings.  I find it
> useful.
>
> a="""
> Line 1
> Line 2
> """

That will work. But an empty string would be """""". Hmm. How about perhaps two single quotes, as in ''f''? Sadly, in a proportional font, it looks just like "f".

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean@verizon.net> wrote in message news:bfunju$g8e$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> What about '' (two single quotes)?
>
> 'c' // char
> ''string''  // wysiwyg string
> "string"  // escaped string

In a proportional font, they are nearly indistinguishable.

> I wouldn't be opposed to backquotes, either.
>
> `string`
>
> or
>
> ``string``

Probably ` is the current leading contender.

> Unicode has some nice quotes too.

I want to use something on a regular keyboard <g>.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bfussh$kiq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "DeadCow" <deadcow-remove-this@free.fr> wrote in message news:bfuit9$bnr$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> > what about a perl-like quotation ?
> >
> > s (for string?) followed by any character as delimiter.
> >
> > s/.../
> > s#...#
> > s%...%
> > s!...!
> >
> > So you can choose the delimiter to avoid escaping.
> >
> > ok it's a bit ugly.
>
> <g>
>
> > can the lexer handle this kind of backward reference ?
>
> Yes.

My mistake, no it can't. s% would tokenize ambiguously.

"Luna Kid" <lunakid@neuropolis.org> wrote in message news:bfuqr0$irj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > simple rules to allow various (unambiguous) representations
> > of a char need to be defined.
>
> Umm, those rules are already defined as EscapeSequence. :)
>
> So, how about this?
>
> Strings:
>
>     'verbatim, as before'
>
>     "escaped,\x20as\x20before"
>
> Chars:
>
>     #c    <-- letter 'c'
>     ##    <-- is this problematic in D?
>     #\t   <-- Tab
>     #\x20 <-- Space
>     #\\   <-- Backslash

It's a good idea, but # has a problem with making it impractical to pass the source through a C preprocessor first!

"Burton Radons" <loth@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:bfusdh$k5e$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I like r"string", which is used in a number of languages already.

Which ones?

> > Strings:
> >
> >     'verbatim, as before'
> >
> >     "escaped,\x20as\x20before"
> >
> > Chars:
> >
> >     #c    <-- letter 'c'
> >     ##    <-- is this problematic in D?
> >     #\t   <-- Tab
> >     #\x20 <-- Space
> >     #\\   <-- Backslash
>
> It's a good idea, but # has a problem with making it impractical to pass the source through a C preprocessor first!

I see.

Well, for me, any other prefix would do, if not too
obscure (should be easy to type).

@ perhaps? (Familiar to the fingers from emails. ;) )

Sz.

> 1) prefixing the " with a letter or a character, as in:
>     W"string"
>     %"string"

Neither of these attract me. The % will be confusing with printf() format strings. The W ... just don't like it.

>     !"string"

Definitely not. !"message string" is useful in asserts in C++. I've not given it any thought, but it seems that this could/would similarly in D.

> 2) using a character not used in C, such as:
>     `string`

I like this, but probably in a minority of 1 (or 2)

>     $string$
>     @string@
>     #string#

Hate all of these.


Here's an unpopular thought: why not use @"string" and be consistent with C#? Easier on the brain even if it doffs one's cap to M$

Walter wrote:
> "Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:bfunju$g8e$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>What about '' (two single quotes)?
>>
>>'c' // char
>>''string''  // wysiwyg string
>>"string"  // escaped string
> 
> 
> In a proportional font, they are nearly indistinguishable.

I think Python uses something like triple double quotes for something.

"""This is a docstring or a preformatted string, IIRC."""

-i.