Wrapping up the first two courses
cushon at google.com
Thu Apr 25 23:29:35 UTC 2019
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 8:56 AM Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:
> For 2/3, here’s a radical suggestion. Our theory is, a “fat” string is
> one that is is co-mingled with the indentation of the surrounding code, and
> one which we usually wish the compiler to disentangle for us. By this
> interpretation, fat single-line strings make no sense, so let’s ban them,
> and similarly, text on the first line similarly makes little sense, so
> let’s ban that too. In other words, fat strings (with the possible
> exception of the trailing delimiter) must exist within a “Kevin
I thought Jim presented a good case for an exception for the trailing
delimiter, but otherwise disallowing single-line 'fat' strings (single-line
multi-line strings?) seems to mostly have upside.
For 4 (opt out), I think it is OK to allow a self-stripping escape on the
> first line (e.g., \-), which expands to nothing, but suppresses stripping.
> This effectively becomes a “here doc”.
This seems OK to me too, but is there good return on complexity? Closing
delimiter influence can also be used to opt out of stripping. Are there
enough use-cases to justify a second opt-out mechanism? And does it have to
be decided now, or could it be added later?
More information about the amber-spec-observers