Probably a minor issue:

If you use a  /+  +/ style comment, it will be terminated early if there's a contained string with the "+/" pattern.

That is: the comment scanner doesn't know about strings.

- Kris

"Kris" <someidiot@earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> wrote in message news:c59jq1$1eb8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Probably a minor issue:
>
> If you use a  /+  +/ style comment, it will be terminated early if there's
a
> contained string with the "+/" pattern.
>
> That is: the comment scanner doesn't know about strings.

That's consistent with /* and */ in D as well as in C++.

But did you decide that this is how it _should_ be?
Being consistent with C/C++ should not be a design goal -- you are trying to
create a *better* language, right?

<snip>
>> If you use a  /+  +/ style comment, it will be terminated early if there's
>a
>> contained string with the "+/" pattern.
>That's consistent with /* and */ in D as well as in C++.
</snip>

I figured so, but wasn't sure if that was the design goal. Would certainly make the parser faster in that particular area.

I guess if we really want to avoid these kinds of gotcha's, then we should use version{} instead ... yes?  If so, then perhaps /+  +/ is somewhat redundant?

- Kris


"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:c59nvm$1k9a$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Kris" <someidiot@earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> wrote in message news:c59jq1$1eb8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Probably a minor issue:
> >
> > If you use a  /+  +/ style comment, it will be terminated early if
there's
> a
> > contained string with the "+/" pattern.
> >
> > That is: the comment scanner doesn't know about strings.
>
> That's consistent with /* and */ in D as well as in C++.
>
>

In article <c59qil$1o1d$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...
>
>I figured so, but wasn't sure if that was the design goal. Would certainly make the parser faster in that particular area.
>
>I guess if we really want to avoid these kinds of gotcha's, then we should use version{} instead ... yes?

Yes, if you're worried about this issue, then use version().

>If so, then perhaps /+  +/ is somewhat
>redundant?

/+ +/ comes in real handy for me for quick trials when I'm trying to chase down a bug or thinking about making major changes. I don't have too many "/+" enclosed in strings in my code. I would comment-out that line with a "//" instead of nested comments in that situation. (Uncommon solutions are appropriate for uncommon situations.)

If you don't find nested comments useful, then don't use them.

JC

>
>- Kris
>
>
>"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:c59nvm$1k9a$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>> "Kris" <someidiot@earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> wrote in message news:c59jq1$1eb8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> > Probably a minor issue:
>> >
>> > If you use a  /+  +/ style comment, it will be terminated early if
>there's
>> a
>> > contained string with the "+/" pattern.
>> >
>> > That is: the comment scanner doesn't know about strings.
>>
>> That's consistent with /* and */ in D as well as in C++.

"Kris" <someidiot@earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> wrote:

> Probably a minor issue:
> 
> If you use a  /+  +/ style comment, it will be terminated early if there's a contained string with the "+/" pattern.
> 
> That is: the comment scanner doesn't know about strings.

That behavior is in the spec, under "Lexical":

"Comment processing conceptually happens before tokenization. This means that embedded strings and comments do not prevent recognition of comment openings and closings"


Odd timing for your post -- I just implemented that behavior in my D lexer this morning :-)

-- 
dave

I should learn to read :-)

"Dave Sieber" <dsieber@spamnot.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns94C7C76FD2F43dsiebersbc@63.105.9.61...
> "Kris" <someidiot@earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> wrote:
>
> > Probably a minor issue:
> >
> > If you use a  /+  +/ style comment, it will be terminated early if there's a contained string with the "+/" pattern.
> >
> > That is: the comment scanner doesn't know about strings.
>
> That behavior is in the spec, under "Lexical":
>
> "Comment processing conceptually happens before tokenization. This means that embedded strings and comments do not prevent recognition of comment openings and closings"
>
>
> Odd timing for your post -- I just implemented that behavior in my D lexer this morning :-)
>
> --
> dave

"Juan C" <Juan_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c59q9a$1nlv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> But did you decide that this is how it _should_ be?

Yes.

> Being consistent with C/C++ should not be a design goal -- you are trying
to
> create a *better* language, right?

I've seen this particular issue on comments debated years ago, and the end result was neither side had a compelling argument. So I'll go with compatibility as the tipping factor.

"Kris" <someidiot@earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> wrote:

> I should learn to read :-)

I wouldn't sweat it -- there's a lot to learn :-)

But I'm curious -- does your editor do syntax highlighting for D, and if so, did it highlight the comment correctly?

--
dave

I'm using a combination of Epsilon (Emacs), and VC6.0. As you might expect, neither show any sign of doing anything with the D-specific comments, although they happily highlight D source as they would C++.

I could probably rattle up some additional EEL code for Epsilon, but it'll never be quite as nifty as what you're working on ...

- Kris


"Dave Sieber" <dsieber@spamnot.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns94C7DB2924634dsiebersbc@63.105.9.61...
> "Kris" <someidiot@earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> wrote:
>
> > I should learn to read :-)
>
> I wouldn't sweat it -- there's a lot to learn :-)
>
> But I'm curious -- does your editor do syntax highlighting for D, and if so, did it highlight the comment correctly?
>
> --
> dave