Re: Bug: Literal strings in long format are not quite literal.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

• Subject: Re: Bug: Literal strings in long format are not quite literal.
• From: Finn Wilcox <finnw@...>
• Date: 2012年11月02日 19:33:10 +0000

---

On 02/11/2012 15:15, Jim Studt wrote:

It would be nice to have a long literal that was actually literal for when you need precise values.
e.g. you might want to embed a PNG, which has the offending pair in bytes 5 and 6, in a
machine generated source file.

Probably not a good idea anyway, as the compressed part could contain "]]"
Finn

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Bug: Literal strings in long format are not quite literal., Jim Studt
  • Re: Bug: Literal strings in long format are not quite literal., Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo

• References:
  • Bug: Literal strings in long format are not quite literal., Jim Studt
  • Re: Bug: Literal strings in long format are not quite literal., Rapin Patrick
  • Re: Bug: Literal strings in long format are not quite literal., Jim Studt

• Prev by Date: Re: Clearing up misconceptions about characters vs bytes in the manual
• Next by Date: Re: Bug: Literal strings in long format are not quite literal.
• Previous by thread: Re: Bug: Literal strings in long format are not quite literal.
• Next by thread: Re: Bug: Literal strings in long format are not quite literal.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread