String literals

[hikari-no-yume]

What's the future of them, and what is the past? It would appear you used to support single-quoted strings, but then got rid of them.

Personally, I like single-quoted strings as I don't need to press the SHIFT key to type them, while I do for double-quoted strings. But then, for a lot of the places where I might use a single-quoted string, I could just use a symbol like :foo.

Is the decision just to stick with double-quoted strings?

[gosukiwi]

Well it was a grammar thing I think, I just decided to support double quoted strings first, as they seem to be the the way most languages define strings. Single quote strings are somehow "optional" although I do prefer them over double quotes, if you want to try it support for single quoted strings could be added just by updating the grammar.

string 
  = '"' '"' _             { return { type: 'STRING', value: "" };    }
  / '"' chars:chars '"' _* { return { type: 'STRING', value: chars }; }

chars
  = chars:char+ { return chars.join(""); }

char
  // any-Unicode-character-except-"-or-\-or-control-character
  = [^"\\\0-\x1F\x7f]
  / '\\"'  { return '"';  }
  / "\\\\" { return "\\"; }
  / "\\/"  { return "/";  }
  / "\\b"  { return "\b"; }
  / "\\f"  { return "\f"; }
  / "\\n"  { return "\n"; }
  / "\n"  { return "\n"; }
  / "\\r"  { return "\r"; }
  / "\\t"  { return "\t"; }

That's how strings are defined now.

[hikari-no-yume]

Ah, I see. For the time being I'll close this, I'm not sure it really needs single-quoted strings.