josef.svenningsson at gmail.com
Wed Feb 1 21:04:14 EST 2006
On 2/2/06, John Meacham <john at repetae.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 02:31:32AM +0100, Josef Svenningsson wrote:
> > I still think there is an inconsistency here. And it has to do with
> > munch lexing. Maximal munch is what we normally expect from a lexer for
> > programming language. But the way comments work at the moment breaks
> > munch. The longest possible read is to read the whole line as a comment
> > not interpret for instance --^ as an operator. It breaks any
> > intuition not only beginners'. I still get it wrong from time to time.
> huh? this is exactly the opposite. maximal munch means that it would
> consume everything and then interpret it as an operator. having it the
> other way would be a special case because you would have to stop
> consuming input after the first --.
I new this response were coming.... It basically comes down to how one
interprets the maximal munch. I know there are plenty of people who agree
with you. But there are those that agree with my standpoint as well. I'm not
going to propose that we start arguing about this. I suppose we'll have to
use other arguments to persuade each other about the comment syntax.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-prime