Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Users

is " #^ " legal syntax?

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

5 messages Options

Udo Schneider

is " #^ " legal syntax?

All,

I just hit a case where I needed to return the caret character "^" as a
Symbol. However simply doing something like

method
^ #^.

doesn't work. Even inspecting the symbol itself

#^ inspect.

doesn't work. "Quoting" the caret works fine:

method
^ #'^'.

So I'm wondering whether #^ (w/o) quoting is considered to be legal
syntax and it's a parser "bug" or whether it's invalid by definition

CU,

Udo

Thierry Goubier

Re: is " #^ " legal syntax?

Hi Udo,

#^ is invalid by definition. #'^' is the right way to write it.

The definition is that # can be followed by a message selector
(including binary selectors such as -), or by a quoted string, or by an
opening parenthesis (array literal).

Regards,

Thierry

Le 27/09/2015 12:27, Udo Schneider a écrit :

> All,
>
> I just hit a case where I needed to return the caret character "^" as a
> Symbol. However simply doing something like
>
> method
> ^ #^.
>
> doesn't work. Even inspecting the symbol itself
>
> #^ inspect.
>
> doesn't work. "Quoting" the caret works fine:
>
> method
> ^ #'^'.
>
> So I'm wondering whether #^ (w/o) quoting is considered to be legal
> syntax and it's a parser "bug" or whether it's invalid by definition
>
> CU,
>
> Udo
>
>
>

Ben Coman

Re: is " #^ " legal syntax?

Interesting though that

#'a' printIt--> #a

but

#'^' printIt--> #'^'

cheers -ben

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Thierry Goubier
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Udo,
>
> #^ is invalid by definition. #'^' is the right way to write it.
>
> The definition is that # can be followed by a message selector (including
> binary selectors such as -), or by a quoted string, or by an opening
> parenthesis (array literal).
>
> Regards,
>
> Thierry
>
>
> Le 27/09/2015 12:27, Udo Schneider a écrit :
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I just hit a case where I needed to return the caret character "^" as a
>> Symbol. However simply doing something like
>>
>> method
>> ^ #^.
>>
>> doesn't work. Even inspecting the symbol itself
>>
>> #^ inspect.
>>
>> doesn't work. "Quoting" the caret works fine:
>>
>> method
>> ^ #'^'.
>>
>> So I'm wondering whether #^ (w/o) quoting is considered to be legal
>> syntax and it's a parser "bug" or whether it's invalid by definition
>>
>> CU,
>>
>> Udo
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Thierry Goubier

Re: is " #^ " legal syntax?

Le 28/09/2015 03:58, Ben Coman a écrit :
> Interesting though that
>
> #'a' printIt--> #a
>
> but
>
> #'^' printIt--> #'^'

If the symbol contains characters which would not make it a valid
symbol, enclose with quotes.

Note that

#''

is possible.

Thierry

>
> cheers -ben
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Thierry Goubier
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi Udo,
>>
>> #^ is invalid by definition. #'^' is the right way to write it.
>>
>> The definition is that # can be followed by a message selector (including
>> binary selectors such as -), or by a quoted string, or by an opening
>> parenthesis (array literal).
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Thierry
>>
>>
>> Le 27/09/2015 12:27, Udo Schneider a écrit :
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I just hit a case where I needed to return the caret character "^" as a
>>> Symbol. However simply doing something like
>>>
>>> method
>>> ^ #^.
>>>
>>> doesn't work. Even inspecting the symbol itself
>>>
>>> #^ inspect.
>>>
>>> doesn't work. "Quoting" the caret works fine:
>>>
>>> method
>>> ^ #'^'.
>>>
>>> So I'm wondering whether #^ (w/o) quoting is considered to be legal
>>> syntax and it's a parser "bug" or whether it's invalid by definition
>>>
>>> CU,
>>>
>>> Udo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Udo Schneider

Re: is " #^ " legal syntax?

In reply to this post by Thierry Goubier

> The definition is that # can be followed by a message selector
> (including binary selectors such as -), or by a quoted string, or by an
> opening parenthesis (array literal).

Thanks for the info. Thinking in terms of the parser tokens makes things
clear now.

Thanks,

Udo

On 27/09/15 13:05, Thierry Goubier wrote:

> Hi Udo,
>
> #^ is invalid by definition. #'^' is the right way to write it.
>
> The definition is that # can be followed by a message selector
> (including binary selectors such as -), or by a quoted string, or by an
> opening parenthesis (array literal).
>
> Regards,
>
> Thierry
>
> Le 27/09/2015 12:27, Udo Schneider a écrit :
>> All,
>>
>> I just hit a case where I needed to return the caret character "^" as a
>> Symbol. However simply doing something like
>>
>> method
>> ^ #^.
>>
>> doesn't work. Even inspecting the symbol itself
>>
>> #^ inspect.
>>
>> doesn't work. "Quoting" the caret works fine:
>>
>> method
>> ^ #'^'.
>>
>> So I'm wondering whether #^ (w/o) quoting is considered to be legal
>> syntax and it's a parser "bug" or whether it's invalid by definition
>>
>> CU,
>>
>> Udo
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>