Re: Musings: Supposed places of safety, guaranteed by parse-partial-sexp are not safe.

["Andreas Röhler" <andreas.roehler@online.de>]

Am 04.12.2011 18:06, schrieb martin rudalics:
>  >> If you change (nth 5 ppss) you would still have to say that (nth 4
> ppss)
>  >> is unreliable in this special case.
>  >
>  > Not if (nth 5 ppss) says that the buffer position is the one *after* the
>  > "/*" sequence. Of course for "*/" we'd conversely want to use the state
>  > *before* "*/".
>
> What I meant was that the caller would have to care about (nth 5 ppss)
> too, wherever she now looked only at (nth 3 ppss) and (nth 4 ppss). If
> we say that a comment is everything in between and including both
> delimiters she won't have to care about (nth 5 ppss) in the first place.
>
> Admittedly, it's not entirely trivial to implement. But the fact that
> between "/" and "*" we are not in a comment whilst between "*" and "/"
> we are doesn't strike me as very intuitive.
>
> martin
>
>

Hi,

a more striking example might deliver comments in html

<!-- base href="https://blub+index" -->

thinks it's only the beginning which needs to be cared beside pps

worked around it with

- looking-at comment-start
- a check, if inside the begin-string, using string-match

Andreas