OpenEuphoria

Re: Bug in get() and value(): embedded comments

• Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at gmail.?om> Jul 25, 2007
• 588 views

CChris wrote:
> 
> Jason Gade wrote:
> > 
> > CChris wrote:
> > > * In the comments, it reads:
> > > "After reading one valid representation of a Euphoria object, ..."
> > > So now there is the possibility of several valid representations for an
> > > object;
> > > otherwise, "the" would have been used again instead.
> > > 
> > > And indeed, value() can cope with spaces inside a string that represents a
> > > sequence,
> > > so that the interpretation from the Comments section would seem to be the
> > > one
> > > to take into account.
> > 
> > BTW, I couldn't find this comment in the source of get.e.
> > 
> > I would assume, though, that the word "one" above was used as opposed to the
> > word "two" or "three" or whatever. I really don't think that it was intended
> > to imply more than one valid representation of an object.
> > 
> 
> The number of valid representations of a sequence is almost infinite. Add
> spaces
> and tabs wherever you want, it's still valid. So "on" really stands for "one
> of many".

I think you're parsing the sentence incorrectly (and it's somewhat vague).  
I believe that the meaning of "one valid representation" was in the sense of,
"it will only read one object, and then it will stop."  It really has nothing
to do with the number of ways that you could alter the representation using
different combinations of whitespace.

While what you're doing is sort of interesting, I think you're getting away
from the purpose of the function.  It definitely is *not* meant to handle
comments.

FTFM: "This works the same as get(),..."

And following the link to get:
"Multiple "top-level" objects in the input stream must be separated from 
each other with one or more "whitespace" characters (blank, tab, \r or \n).
Whitespace is not necessary within a top-level object. A call to get() 
will read one entire top-level object, plus one additional (whitespace) 
character."

Note: no mention of comments.  This would definitely fall under the category
of enhancement, or feature request, and not bugs, AFAICT.  It certainly
sounds useful, but without analyzing the impact (speed, etc), I don't think
we should necessarily include it.  Others may have other reasons to 
exclude this, but I'll let them speak for themselves.

Matt