In CFML a string can be defined with single or double quotes and any #vars#
in the string will be expanded
e.g
name = “Chris”
text = “Hi #name#”
echo(text) // → Hi Chris
So where you want a # in a string you have to escape it with ##
What if double quotes supported variable expansion, but single quotes did
not ?
name = “Chris”
double = “Hi #name#”
single = ‘Hi #name#’
echo(double) // → Hi Chris
echo(single) // → Hi #name#
This is slightly different from java where a single quotes are used for
character literals, and double quotes for strings, but should be familiar
to nix shell users
good idea, i would love to hear more opinions on this.
MichaOn Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Chris Blackwell <@Chris_Blackwell> wrote:
In CFML a string can be defined with single or double quotes and any #vars# in the string will be expanded
e.g
name = “Chris”
text = “Hi #name#”
echo(text) // → Hi Chris
So where you want a # in a string you have to escape it with ##
What if double quotes supported variable expansion, but single quotes did
not ?
name = “Chris”
double = “Hi #name#”
single = ‘Hi #name#’
echo(double) // → Hi Chris
echo(single) // → Hi #name#
This is slightly different from java where a single quotes are used for
character literals, and double quotes for strings, but should be familiar
to nix shell users
good idea, i would love to hear more opinions on this.
Micha
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Chris Blackwell <@Chris_Blackwell mailto:Chris_Blackwell> wrote:
In CFML a string can be defined with single or double quotes and
any #vars# in the string will be expanded
e.g
name = "Chris"
text = "Hi #name#"
echo(text) // --> Hi Chris
So where you want a # in a string you have to escape it with ##
What if double quotes supported variable expansion, but single
quotes did not ?
name = "Chris"
double = "Hi #name#"
single = 'Hi #name#'
echo(double) // --> Hi Chris
echo(single) // --> Hi #name#
This is slightly different from java where a single quotes are
used for character literals, and double quotes for strings, but
should be familiar to nix shell users
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
<mailto:lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com
<mailto:lucee@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAB%3DtfTooR%3Droy-zDbj9bDEFHaLzxRKNguW0MyBTP5n4ZZ64yPg%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAB%3DtfTooR%3Droy-zDbj9bDEFHaLzxRKNguW0MyBTP5n4ZZ64yPg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
good idea, i would love to hear more opinions on this.
Micha
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Chris Blackwell <ch...@team193.com <javascript:>> wrote:
In CFML a string can be defined with single or double quotes and any #vars# in the string will be expanded
e.g
name = “Chris”
text = “Hi #name#”
echo(text) // → Hi Chris
So where you want a # in a string you have to escape it with ##
What if double quotes supported variable expansion, but single quotes
did not ?
name = “Chris”
double = “Hi #name#”
single = ‘Hi #name#’
echo(double) // → Hi Chris
echo(single) // → Hi #name#
This is slightly different from java where a single quotes are used for
character literals, and double quotes for strings, but should be familiar
to nix shell users
I prefer Igal suggestion as well as it has a clearer meaning than single
and double quotes, which most people assume are interchangeable in a lot of
situations.On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 at 23:14 Jesse Shaffer <@Jesse_Shaffer> wrote:
I think I would prefer Igal’s suggestion here.
On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 12:14:42 PM UTC-5, Igal wrote:
I find single quote escaping to be much more frequent than octothorpe
escaping, and the proposal will require to escape single quotes.
C# has a construct in which the @ symbol is used in front of a string to
denote that it is verbatim. I’d rather use something like that so that:
echo( “millisecs since epoch: #getTickCount()#” ); // evaluate the cfml
expression
echo( @‘to find the millisecs since epoch use “#getTickCount()#”’ ); //
verbatim string, no evaluation
echo( @“to get the epoch’s time use #getTickCount()#” ); // no need to
escape apostrophe
good idea, i would love to hear more opinions on this.
Micha
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Chris Blackwell ch...@team193.com wrote:
In CFML a string can be defined with single or double quotes and any
#vars# in the string will be expanded
e.g
name = “Chris”
text = “Hi #name#”
echo(text) // → Hi Chris
So where you want a # in a string you have to escape it with ##
What if double quotes supported variable expansion, but single quotes
did not ?
name = “Chris”
double = “Hi #name#”
single = ‘Hi #name#’
echo(double) // → Hi Chris
echo(single) // → Hi #name#
This is slightly different from java where a single quotes are used
for character literals, and double quotes for strings, but should be
familiar to nix shell users
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups “Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
There wont be a runtime benefit since dealing with escaped hashes is
done at compile-time.
And I’m not sure that checking for escaped hashes is significantly more
effort than escaped quotes - I’m assuming double quotes are escapable -
i.e. the following are all equivalent:
@"A string with # and "" in it"
"A string with ## and "" in it"
'A string with ## and " in it'
Is escaping hashes a big enough issue to justify adding complexity to
the language/compiler?
(That’s a genuine question, not rhetorical - it’s never been an issue
for me, but of course others may have different problems…)
It could be something that was introduced into lucee for both .cf and
.lucee syntaxes as it wouldn’t change the behaviour of existing code.On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 23:41 Andrew Dixon <@Andrew_Dixon> wrote:
I prefer Igal suggestion as well as it has a clearer meaning than single
and double quotes, which most people assume are interchangeable in a lot of
situations.
On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 at 23:14 Jesse Shaffer <@Jesse_Shaffer> wrote:
I think I would prefer Igal’s suggestion here.
On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 12:14:42 PM UTC-5, Igal wrote:
I find single quote escaping to be much more frequent than octothorpe
escaping, and the proposal will require to escape single quotes.
C# has a construct in which the @ symbol is used in front of a string to
denote that it is verbatim. I’d rather use something like that so that:
echo( “millisecs since epoch: #getTickCount()#” ); // evaluate the cfml
expression
echo( @‘to find the millisecs since epoch use “#getTickCount()#”’ ); //
verbatim string, no evaluation
echo( @“to get the epoch’s time use #getTickCount()#” ); // no need to
escape apostrophe
good idea, i would love to hear more opinions on this.
Micha
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Chris Blackwell ch...@team193.com wrote:
In CFML a string can be defined with single or double quotes and any
#vars# in the string will be expanded
e.g
name = “Chris”
text = “Hi #name#”
echo(text) // → Hi Chris
So where you want a # in a string you have to escape it with ##
What if double quotes supported variable expansion, but single quotes
did not ?
name = “Chris”
double = “Hi #name#”
single = ‘Hi #name#’
echo(double) // → Hi Chris
echo(single) // → Hi #name#
This is slightly different from java where a single quotes are used
for character literals, and double quotes for strings, but should be
familiar to nix shell users
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups “Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
I completely agree, but discussing whether it’s something we want vs
prioritising and scheduling the work are different things entirely.On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 14:09 Alex Skinner <@Alex_Skinner> wrote:
I’m not against the idea but would love to see a prioritised issue list.
I’m not sure this is problem I feel needs solving
A
Sent from my phone
On 11 Apr 2015 13:14, “Peter Boughton” <@Peter_Boughton> wrote:
I still haven’t seen a reason for adding this?
There wont be a runtime benefit since dealing with escaped hashes is
done at compile-time.
And I’m not sure that checking for escaped hashes is significantly more
effort than escaped quotes - I’m assuming double quotes are escapable -
i.e. the following are all equivalent:
@"A string with # and "" in it"
"A string with ## and "" in it"
'A string with ## and " in it'
Is escaping hashes a big enough issue to justify adding complexity to
the language/compiler?
(That’s a genuine question, not rhetorical - it’s never been an issue
for me, but of course others may have different problems…)
Performance wise this makes no difference at runtime, because the compiler
does the same bytecode for this different syntax. For me there is also one
problem with this I have a lot code like this.
Str=‘<input type=“#t#” …>’;
Of course this is also possible with double quotes but with sq it is easier
and better readable
MichaAm Freitag, 10. April 2015 schrieb Chris Blackwell :
My original thought was that if you could distinguish between strings that
needed to be checked for variable expansion, and those that don’t, then
there might be a potential performance benefit. I do’t know what the over
head is or if its significant, I guess you and Micha would have the best
insight there…
would there any performance difference between
s = “Hi #name#”;
and
s = "Hi " & name;
or
s = 'Hi ’ & name;
if 'Hi ’ is not check for variable expansion
btw, never seen the word “octothorpe” before, very nice
On 10 April 2015 at 18:14, Igal @ Lucee.org <@Igal <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,‘cvml’,‘@Igal’);>> wrote:
I find single quote escaping to be much more frequent than octothorpe
escaping, and the proposal will require to escape single quotes.
C# has a construct in which the @ symbol is used in front of a string to
denote that it is verbatim. I’d rather use something like that so that:
echo( “millisecs since epoch: #getTickCount()#” ); // evaluate the cfml
expression
echo( @‘to find the millisecs since epoch use “#getTickCount()#”’ ); //
verbatim string, no evaluation
echo( @“to get the epoch’s time use #getTickCount()#” ); // no need to
escape apostrophe
good idea, i would love to hear more opinions on this.
Micha
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Chris Blackwell <@Chris_Blackwell <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,‘cvml’,‘@Chris_Blackwell’);>> wrote:
In CFML a string can be defined with single or double quotes and any #vars# in the string will be expanded
e.g
name = “Chris”
text = “Hi #name#”
echo(text) // → Hi Chris
So where you want a # in a string you have to escape it with ##
What if double quotes supported variable expansion, but single quotes
did not ?
name = “Chris”
double = “Hi #name#”
single = ‘Hi #name#’
echo(double) // → Hi Chris
echo(single) // → Hi #name#
This is slightly different from java where a single quotes are used
for character literals, and double quotes for strings, but should be
familiar to nix shell users
I’m not against the idea but would love to see a prioritised issue list.
I’m not sure this is problem I feel needs solving
ASent from my phone
On 11 Apr 2015 13:14, “Peter Boughton” <@Peter_Boughton> wrote:
I still haven’t seen a reason for adding this?
There wont be a runtime benefit since dealing with escaped hashes is
done at compile-time.
And I’m not sure that checking for escaped hashes is significantly more
effort than escaped quotes - I’m assuming double quotes are escapable -
i.e. the following are all equivalent:
@"A string with # and "" in it"
"A string with ## and "" in it"
'A string with ## and " in it'
Is escaping hashes a big enough issue to justify adding complexity to
the language/compiler?
(That’s a genuine question, not rhetorical - it’s never been an issue
for me, but of course others may have different problems…)
+1 for IgalOn Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 7:14:26 AM UTC-5, Peter Boughton wrote:
I still haven’t seen a reason for adding this?
There wont be a runtime benefit since dealing with escaped hashes is
done at compile-time.
And I’m not sure that checking for escaped hashes is significantly more
effort than escaped quotes - I’m assuming double quotes are escapable -
i.e. the following are all equivalent:
@"A string with # and "" in it"
"A string with ## and "" in it"
'A string with ## and " in it'
Is escaping hashes a big enough issue to justify adding complexity to
the language/compiler?
(That’s a genuine question, not rhetorical - it’s never been an issue
for me, but of course others may have different problems…)
I think I’d only advocate it if there’s a performance benefit. I know other languages support string interpolation with one specific quote scheme but I’ve always found it a bit undeeded personally. It’s a layer of complexity to remember which is which and you’re already likely in a habit of using one or the other. Escaping is already obvious anyway.
If not performance, what’s the benefit? I guess you’d need to run a benchmark of a whole bunch of strings with and without interpolation, and string concatenation against parsing for the quoting scheme. If there’s no or negligble difference in performance in escaping octothorpes vs literal string use with no interpolation checking, why bother?
I completely agree, but discussing whether it’s something we want vs
prioritising and scheduling the work are different things entirely.
+1
I’m not against the idea but would love to see a prioritised issue list.
I’m not sure this is problem I feel needs solving
A
I still haven’t seen a reason for adding this?
There wont be a runtime benefit since dealing with escaped hashes is
done at compile-time.
And I’m not sure that checking for escaped hashes is significantly more
effort than escaped quotes - I’m assuming double quotes are escapable -
i.e. the following are all equivalent:
@"A string with # and "" in it"
"A string with ## and "" in it"
'A string with ## and " in it'
Is escaping hashes a big enough issue to justify adding complexity to
the language/compiler?
(That’s a genuine question, not rhetorical - it’s never been an issue
for me, but of course others may have different problems…)
discussing whether it’s something we want vs prioritising
and scheduling the work are different things entirely.
Simply discussing things people say they want - without a clear why -
is at risk of drifting into PHP pandemonium and cfclient nonsense.
A better way is to present things in terms of “I have problem X. Fixing
this would involve A, B, C. What about solution Y?” and then having a
discussion where ideas pop out. This might involve someone else saying
“My similar issue needs A, C, E, and solution Z might solve both our
problems.” or whatever. It might even be solvable with existing
functionality.
My point being that such discussions should be backed by some purpose -
something that can result in saying “we added Y to fix X” instead of
“here’s a new thing that you may or not want”.
My point being that such discussions should be backed by some purpose -
something that can result in saying “we added Y to fix X” instead of
“here’s a new thing that you may or not want”.
I disagree.
discussions like “I have an idea… what do you guys think?” are totally
valid and should be encouraged IMO.On 4/12/2015 3:54 AM, Peter Boughton wrote:
discussing whether it’s something we want vs prioritising
and scheduling the work are different things entirely.
Simply discussing things people say they want - without a clear why -
is at risk of drifting into PHP pandemonium and cfclient nonsense.
A better way is to present things in terms of “I have problem X. Fixing
this would involve A, B, C. What about solution Y?” and then having a
discussion where ideas pop out. This might involve someone else saying
“My similar issue needs A, C, E, and solution Z might solve both our
problems.” or whatever. It might even be solvable with existing
functionality.
My point being that such discussions should be backed by some purpose -
something that can result in saying “we added Y to fix X” instead of
“here’s a new thing that you may or not want”.
I’ve come to this thread late (just now), and this was kinda my feeling too.
What real issue is being addressed by this suggestion? How is it an
improvement over the way CFML already interpolates strings / escapes
expressions from being evaluated?
I’m not suggesting there aren’t any, I they’re just not immediately obvious
to me.On Saturday, 11 April 2015 13:14:26 UTC+1, Peter Boughton wrote:
2015-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Alex Skinner <@Alex_Skinner>:
To me I agree that I don’t see the point but also with Igal that there is
nothing wrong with people discussing it
To be honest I think the google mailing list is a dismal failure in terms
of segmentation of discussions into buckets. Everything gets jumped on
because everything has equal sign posting nothing has a context. And as a
tool to foster cohesion within any sort of grouping or context it’s just
shite.
I think we frankly jumped the gun due to popular opinion regarding how
bad discourse was.
As the supporters list had next to no activity I suggest we start by
moving that back on discourse. That way we have a better tool for people
that are prepared to work with it and see the benefit
Alex
Sent from my phone
On 14 Apr 2015 01:33, “Michael Offner” <@Michael_Offner1> wrote:
I also agree, I don’t really see a benefit in it …
Micha
Am Montag, 13. April 2015 schrieb Adam Cameron :
On Saturday, 11 April 2015 13:14:26 UTC+1, Peter Boughton wrote:
I still haven’t seen a reason for adding this?
I’ve come to this thread late (just now), and this was kinda my feeling
too.
What real issue is being addressed by this suggestion? How is it an
improvement over the way CFML already interpolates strings / escapes
expressions from being evaluated?
I’m not suggesting there aren’t any, I they’re just not immediately
obvious to me.
I also agree, I don’t really see a benefit in it …
MichaAm Montag, 13. April 2015 schrieb Adam Cameron :
On Saturday, 11 April 2015 13:14:26 UTC+1, Peter Boughton wrote:
I still haven’t seen a reason for adding this?
I’ve come to this thread late (just now), and this was kinda my feeling
too.
What real issue is being addressed by this suggestion? How is it an
improvement over the way CFML already interpolates strings / escapes
expressions from being evaluated?
I’m not suggesting there aren’t any, I they’re just not immediately
obvious to me.
i think that is a very interesting idea …2015-04-14 9:47 GMT+02:00 Alex Skinner <@Alex_Skinner>:
To me I agree that I don’t see the point but also with Igal that there is
nothing wrong with people discussing it
To be honest I think the google mailing list is a dismal failure in terms
of segmentation of discussions into buckets. Everything gets jumped on
because everything has equal sign posting nothing has a context. And as a
tool to foster cohesion within any sort of grouping or context it’s just
shite.
I think we frankly jumped the gun due to popular opinion regarding how bad
discourse was.
As the supporters list had next to no activity I suggest we start by
moving that back on discourse. That way we have a better tool for people
that are prepared to work with it and see the benefit
Alex
Sent from my phone
On 14 Apr 2015 01:33, “Michael Offner” <@Michael_Offner1> wrote:
I also agree, I don’t really see a benefit in it …
Micha
Am Montag, 13. April 2015 schrieb Adam Cameron :
On Saturday, 11 April 2015 13:14:26 UTC+1, Peter Boughton wrote:
I still haven’t seen a reason for adding this?
I’ve come to this thread late (just now), and this was kinda my feeling
too.
What real issue is being addressed by this suggestion? How is it an
improvement over the way CFML already interpolates strings / escapes
expressions from being evaluated?
I’m not suggesting there aren’t any, I they’re just not immediately
obvious to me.
To me I agree that I don’t see the point but also with Igal that there is
nothing wrong with people discussing it
To be honest I think the google mailing list is a dismal failure in terms
of segmentation of discussions into buckets. Everything gets jumped on
because everything has equal sign posting nothing has a context. And as a
tool to foster cohesion within any sort of grouping or context it’s just
shite.
I think we frankly jumped the gun due to popular opinion regarding how bad
discourse was.
As the supporters list had next to no activity I suggest we start by moving
that back on discourse. That way we have a better tool for people that are
prepared to work with it and see the benefit
AlexSent from my phone
On 14 Apr 2015 01:33, “Michael Offner” <@Michael_Offner1> wrote:
I also agree, I don’t really see a benefit in it …
Micha
Am Montag, 13. April 2015 schrieb Adam Cameron :
On Saturday, 11 April 2015 13:14:26 UTC+1, Peter Boughton wrote:
I still haven’t seen a reason for adding this?
I’ve come to this thread late (just now), and this was kinda my feeling
too.
What real issue is being addressed by this suggestion? How is it an
improvement over the way CFML already interpolates strings / escapes
expressions from being evaluated?
I’m not suggesting there aren’t any, I they’re just not immediately
obvious to me.
