Interesting though that #'a' printIt--> #a but #'^' printIt--> #'^' cheers -ben On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com> 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

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