> > > I agree with Paul here. The only reason I suggested | was to make > life > > > easier for 3rd party tools. > > > > But does it? > > > > With @, a third party tool has an unambiguous indication of whether a > > line is a decorator. With |, it is not possible to recognize decorators > > with a regular expression, instead you have to do some context-free > > parsing to determine whether some previous line has an unclosed paren > > (in which case the | is a binop rather than a decorator). > > Oh ick. I hadn't thought of that, but if that's going to cause a > problem given the current grammar (and I can't test that atm), then I'm > going to have to retract my support for |. An exclamation point would be better in this regard. Raymond
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4