[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe. |
Date: |
Mon, 5 Dec 2011 11:25:49 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
Hello, Martin.
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 06:06:16PM +0100, martin rudalics wrote:
> >> If you change (nth 5 ppss) you would still have to say that (nth 4 ppss)
> >> is unreliable in this special case.
> > Not if (nth 5 ppss) says that the buffer position is the one *after* the
> > "/*" sequence. Of course for "*/" we'd conversely want to use the state
> > *before* "*/".
> What I meant was that the caller would have to care about (nth 5 ppss)
> too, wherever she now looked only at (nth 3 ppss) and (nth 4 ppss). If
> we say that a comment is everything in between and including both
> delimiters she won't have to care about (nth 5 ppss) in the first place.
The parse-partial scanner works strictly left to right. If (nth 5 ppss)
records the left hand bit of "/*", we are not yet in a comment. We're
probably about to do a division. Similarly, after * of "*/", we're still
in the comment, probably just passed a comment prefix.
Admittedly CC Mode records the entire comment, including /* and */.
> Admittedly, it's not entirely trivial to implement. But the fact that
> between "/" and "*" we are not in a comment whilst between "*" and "/"
> we are doesn't strike me as very intuitive.
I disagree. I think keeping the stricly L to R invariant of the parse is
critically important (but don't ask me why :-).
> martin
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe., (continued)
- Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe., Daniel Colascione, 2011/12/03
- Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe., Stefan Monnier, 2011/12/03
- Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe., martin rudalics, 2011/12/04
- Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe., Stefan Monnier, 2011/12/04
- Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe., martin rudalics, 2011/12/04
- Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe., Andreas Röhler, 2011/12/04
- Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe., Stefan Monnier, 2011/12/04
- Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe., martin rudalics, 2011/12/05
- Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe., Stefan Monnier, 2011/12/05
- Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe., Alan Mackenzie, 2011/12/05
- Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe.,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe., martin rudalics, 2011/12/06
- Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe., Alan Mackenzie, 2011/12/06
- Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe., martin rudalics, 2011/12/06
- Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe., Stefan Monnier, 2011/12/06