• Mehrdad (6/6) Jun 12 2011 I'm a little confused on tokenized strings -- are the following valid?
• Bernard Helyer (5/5) Jun 13 2011 All they are is passed through the tokeniser to ensure they lex as valid...
• Bernard Helyer (2/9) Jun 13 2011 Back slash, rather.
• Bernard Helyer (2/2) Jun 13 2011 Actually, the \u stuff indicates a literal and not an actual token, so

Mehrdad <wfunction hotmail.com> writes:

I'm a little confused on tokenized strings -- are the following valid?
Are they supposed to be?

q{\u000A}
q{"}
q{\}

Thanks!

Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com> writes:

All they are is passed through the tokeniser to ensure they lex as valid 
D (not parse). 

http://d-programming-language.org/lex.html

A naked slash is not a valid token on its own, AFAIK, so it shouldn't 
work. But the other two are fine.

Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:13:13 +0000, Bernard Helyer wrote:

 All they are is passed through the tokeniser to ensure they lex as valid
 D (not parse).
 
 http://d-programming-language.org/lex.html
 
 A naked slash is not a valid token on its own, AFAIK, so it shouldn't
 work. But the other two are fine.

Back slash, rather.

Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com> writes:

Actually, the \u stuff indicates a literal and not an actual token, so 
the only actually valid one is '"'. Third time's the charm!