In article <2025Mar5.094004@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
Anton Ertl wrote:
>mhx@iae.nl (mhx) writes:
>>I am not a fan of S\" TYPE as it tends to move the parsing and
>>interpretation problems to parts of the code / library that may
>>not be prepared for it, or where it would be quite an overhead
>>to anticipate every present and future possibility.
>
>Can you elaborate on that, especially about the overhead?
>
>>For instance,
>>having a backspace in a string has no obvious meaning in most
>>of the system code
>
>Nobody forces you you to use \b if it's inappropriate.
That is not the problem with escapes.
The problem comes if you use "\b" where it is meant literal
and it is altered.
So beside adhering to ISO, the string constant in style
"orang utan@@\a\b\q#$^^&**()^*()_+" are absolutely literal
in ciforth. The "-prefix was a pre-20xx extension.
Only exception is the doubling of the double quotes, Algol68 style.
"orang""UTAN" replace "orang\"UTAN" without the possibility of
confusion.
>
>>and an application can simply redefine BS
>>to have it do what is necessary.
>
>One would have to define BS first; otherwise you cannot redefine it.
>What is BS supposed to do, and what is redefining BS supposed to
>achieve?
Good questions.
My idea of a prefix that does special parsing:
1. it is part of the application and documented there
2. User defined notation must not be recognized in the minimum defined
search order, such like numbers. Instead it belongs in Forth or another
wordlist and is forgettable, marked-offable.
In this context these questions are easily answered.
>
>- anton
Groetjes Albert
--
Temu exploits Christians: (Disclaimer, only 10 apostles)
Last Supper Acrylic Suncatcher - 15Cm Round Stained Glass- Style Wall
Art For Home, Office And Garden Decor - Perfect For Windows, Bars,
And Gifts For Friends Family And Colleagues.
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
