GNU bug report logs - #44554
27.1; Feature request: SRFI-62 style comments for Emacs Lisp.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #11 received at 44554 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Vladimir Nikishkin <lockywolf <at> gmail.com>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 44554 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#44554: 27.1; Feature request: SRFI-62 style comments for
 Emacs Lisp.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 23:11:45 +0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Well, fontification usually solves the problem of "slightly hard to read"
for me, because it's usually very different in co colour.

Speaking of block comments, I have no opinion about that. The point of
s-comments is exactly that they keep sexp syntax intact.
Block comments are not expected to do that (even for the human languages
within the comments).

--
Yours sincerely, Vladimir Nikishkin
(Sent with Google mail mobile.)

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> 于 2020年11月10日周二 22:57写道：

> Vladimir Nikishkin <lockywolf <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> > #;(defvar demo-variable nil
> >   "This is a demo-variable declared to illustrate SRFI-62.")
> > ```
> >
> > The special reader syntax "#;" means "please, ignore the next valid
> > s-expression completely".
>
> Sexp-based comments would certainly be nice, but I wonder whether
> comment blocks would be even more useful (if we have to prioritise):
>
> #| this is
> a comment |#
>
> The advantage is that you don't have to have syntactically valid things
> in comment blocks, while #; requires that you do.  #; also looks like
> slightly hard to read if you do stuff like
>
> (foo #;(foobar
>         ...
>         1)
>      zot)
>
> --
> (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
>    bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.