Re: Why non-escaped newlines are prohibited in single-quoted string literals?

[nobody <nobody+lua-list@...>]

On 2017-01-29 15:44, Egor Skriptunoff wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:16 PM, nobody wrote:
>> quite large decrease in debuggability
> This is not a problem at all. Improperly closed literal strings are
> clearly visible due to syntax highlighting. IMO, using notepad (or
> similar castrated editor in your OS) for programming is a bad
> practice. Are you too concerned with debuggability, but the text
> editor you are using lacks Lua syntax highlighting?

Wrong angle of approach - the editor is yet another tool independent of
Lua.  (And my editor does syntax highlighting just fine - unless I'm
forced to `sed` and `ed` things.)

At present, Lua is pretty good at generating helpful error messages.
Permitting "untagged" newlines would throw a lot of that away (unless
there's some way of handling this that I haven't thought of yet.)  While
it may still be easy for a human (who is not visually impaired and has a
rough idea of what it's supposed to look like) to find the missing
quote, all others (mostly other programs, and also some beginners and
(color-)blind people) will lose on this and lack a way to quickly
identify the source of the error.  (Unless there's some nifty hack that
I haven't thought of yet that makes it still clearly parse-able.)

-- nobody