develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2007

Re: [PATCH - provisional] H. Merijn Brands idea of buffer numbering.

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
demerphq
Date:
February 7, 2007 13:54
Subject:
Re: [PATCH - provisional] H. Merijn Brands idea of buffer numbering.
Message ID:
9b18b3110702071353l250d8a67x188c4e234e8905c7@mail.gmail.com
On 2/6/07, H.Merijn Brand <h.m.brand@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:15:11 +0100, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/6/07, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This prototype patch adds support for
> > >
> > > (?^......)
> > >
> > > which has the property that the buffers in any given branch that the
> > > construct contains will start at the same number. Any buffers after
> > > the construct will be numbered consequetively just as the would if the
> > > only branch in the construct was the one with the most buffers in it.
> > >
> > > Since i seem to be unable to explain this in simple words maybe a
> > > picture will do (view it in a fixed width font.)
> > >
> > >       $1           $1   $2            $1  $2       $3
> > > (?^...(...)...|....(....(....)...)|...(..)(..)..)..(...)
> > >
> > >
> > > Merijn, do you want to try this out and get back to me please?
> >
> > Attached patch doesnt f*ck eveything up at the same time.
>
> Right :)
>
> I presented this tonight in Amsterdam.pm, and got replies varying
> from "useful" to "why the f... did it take two years to implement?"
> (Yes, I talked about my thought about this with John Krieken two
> years ago, and he remembered)
>
> I personally would still prefer the (?|...) over (?^...), as it
> sounds more logical.
>
> All agreed that the choice to make this new construct non-capturing
> was good.
>
> For the record, I asked for a regex modifier/flag (I suggested /r),
> but Yves convinced me that would lead to trouble. Of course the
> mongers also asked for a flag, and I now could explain why. IRC++.
>
> Which brings up a remark from Abigail that the new /k will break
> Regexp::Common, as the k flag is in the public API.
>
> > Also some tests included.
>
> All tests passed.
>
> > Tux: wanna do the perlre.pod patch?
>
> Which one?

Heh. Ok, well attached patch adds a bit of comments, updates
perlre.pod the new syntax called the "branch reset" pattern, and adds
a few more tests.

Cheers,
Yves

-- 
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"


Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About