Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Jon Jensen <jon@endpoint.com> writes:
> > > Is there a reason not to use here documents?
> >
> > The $$FOO proposal I put forward earlier was consciously modeled on
> > here-documents. We cannot use exactly the shell syntax for
> > here-documents, though, mainly because we already have meaning assigned
> > to strings like <<' (<< is already a standard operator, and the ' could
> > be the start of an ordinary literal).
> >
> > I would definitely like to see us adopt a proposal that is like
> > here-documents to the extent that there's a family of possible
> > terminator markers and not only one. But we'll have to adjust the
> > syntax a little bit. If you don't like $$FOO, what else comes to mind?
>
> Couldn't we allow << at the beginning of the line to mean 'here' document?
What about the Python approach: The literal text is enclosed either in a pair
of three single quotes or three double quotes. So you can do (e.g. in the
python shell)
> s = """
This is
'one'
string.
"""
to set string s or
> s = '''
This is
'one'
string.
'''
Even
> s = """
This is 'one'
string with '''triple single quotes'''
and some "double" quotes.
"""
works:
> print s
This is 'one'
string with '''triple single quotes'''
and some "double" quotes.
Bye,
Tilo