From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from plg.waterloo.edu ([129.97.140.10]) by archone.tamu.edu with SMTP id <45336>; Fri, 13 Mar 1992 16:45:01 -0600
Received: by plg.waterloo.edu id <49339>; Fri, 13 Mar 1992 17:44:41 -0500
From: Dave Mason <dmason@plg.waterloo.edu>
To: The rc Mailing List <rc@archone.tamu.edu>
In-reply-to: John (I've got some bad news for you, sunshine) Mackin's message of Fri, 13 Mar 1992 05:14:22 -0500 <199203132014.5018.rc.bagel@vetsci.su.oz.au>
Subject: RE: comments, newlines 
Message-Id: <92Mar13.174441est.49339@plg.waterloo.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 16:44:35 -0600

> From: John (I've got some bad news for you, sunshine) Mackin <john@vetsci.su.oz.au>
> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 05:14:22 -0500

> I claim that # should only be seen as a comment introducer if it is
> preceded by whitespace or at the start of the line.  So if you do
> 
> echo foo#bar
> 
> you should, in my view, get "foo#bar".  You do in sh.  You don't in rc:
> Byron thinks # should introduce a comment even if it is in the middle
> of a word.  I think this is plainly wrong.  Opinions?

Why should it be special?  What's wrong with
	echo foo'#'bar
?  It's not as if octothorpe is exactly the most common character, and I
think it's actually harder for people to parse by your rules, as they have
to consider the context of whether it is preceeded by whitespace.

As for
	a=( 1 \
	# 2\
	3)

Either:
	a=( 1 3)
or:
	a=( 1 #2	---- error

Seem reasonable (in the second one you'd actually get a second error from
the ``3)'').  I can see the former as being handy, and the latter as being
consistent and simple.  I vote for consistent and simple.  I can see no
justification for the interpretation:
	a=( 1 # 2 3)	---- error

	../Dave