J
jacob navia
Le 06/07/11 12:47, BartC a écrit :
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
S
Stephen Sprunk
Le 06/07/11 05:03, Squeamizh a écrit :
But that is exactly what I am proposing.
No, you missed his point; however, the rest is worth responding to.
But if we are going to keep
those programs independent of ONE EDITOR, a standard should be set up
so that all editors know what to expect
In a first post I thought that rtf could be that standard, but it
has some drawbacks, and I think now that HTML could be a better
solution
I see no reason C source would need to be RTF or HTML, which would be a
fundamental and unnecessary change. Simple UTF-8 encoded text would
work fine, though many compilers and other tools would probably need to
be modified if they can't handle a UTF-8 encoded BOM at the beginning of
the file, which is advisable any time one doesn't stick to pure ASCII.
S
I
Ian Collins
Le 06/07/11 12:47, BartC a écrit :
Yes, but special comments would need to be standardized so we could
write formulas and diagrams into commentaries without resorting
to "Ascii art" and drawings. What bothers me is that all the
technology is available but nobody uses it. For instance if
we would set
/*
<html>
</html>
*/
We could use full html editors (or XML or rtf or whatever) to include
in the programs all word processing extensions needed to add all the
necessary features into program text.
The same with the Unicode characters in programs instead of today's
digraphs.
All this proposals do not imply a change in the C la,nguage of course.
Since the diagrams and rich text wuld be enclosed in comments, it
would be transparent to the compiler. The Unicode characters would need
a small change in the compiler front end, or a preprocessor that
translates ≠into !=
A while back I experimented with writing code and documentation together
in OpenOffice, running a transform over the document XML to extract the
source code. While this worked, I soon realised why we have both code
editors and word processors. Neither does the other's job particularly
well.
P
Phil Carmody
Michael Press said:Diacritical marks are for people who do not
remember how to pronounce their own language.
Not in the last 4 languages I've surrounded myself with.
Addition or removal of diacritical marks could theoretically
turn one word into a different word with an identical syntactic
role.
Phil
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Forum statistics
Latest Threads
-
How do I change OST files into PST format?
- Started by Regain@123
-
What tool converts MBOX to PST?
- Started by Regain@123
-
Can EML files be converted to PST?
- Started by Regain@123
-
Foreign key error
- Started by manin
-
What are the steps to convert Outlook PST files to various formats?
- Started by Regain@123
-
Best Method to Import PST Files to Gmail Without Outlook
- Started by priyanka0503
-
How to convert MBOX files to HTML?
- Started by Mahesh01
-
Best solution of Thunderbird to NSF Converter in 2025?
- Started by Mahesh01
-
Faster calculations
- Started by Shamestone
-
If I need to do regex replacement 27000 times, how to shorten it?
- Started by tata huft