Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2011
>On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 03:31:23PM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote: >> Karl Williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote >> on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:20:08 MDT: >> >> > In thinking about this some more, given the bug that Nicholas found that >> > affects all multi-character folds, not just \xdf, in character classes, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> Or did you mean something else? > I think you missed the "in character classes" part of Karl's thought. > Your examples don't use [] You're right. I did. Thanks, Nick. > I'm still not sure *what* I think. > But *if* a class consisting of a single character is always equivalent to a > literal of that character (ie /[a]/ is /a/, /[ß]/ is /ß/, /[ß]/i is /ß/i, > etc), one of the things I'm not about is whether it's better to say "no > multi character folds in character classes" or "no multi character folds in > character classes, except classes consisting of exactly one character". I > think (I think) that it's useful to maintain that explicit correspondence, > as (IIRC) Yves worked to get the engine to optimise /[a]/ to /a/ and /[.]/ to > /\./, as it was a common idiom in some circles to use regexp character class > syntax as an alternative to backslash quoting. I remember that. There was also the way a*a*a*a*a*[b] worked differently that a*a*a*a*a*b worked. I agree that /[b]/ and /b/ should really always be the same. Withdrawing multichar folds in charclasses would certainly be less of an issue than withdrawing them altogether. I don't know how we'll ever know what something *would* do without doing it. And I would like to have a workaround at ready for anyone who gets affected in a negative way, no matter what gets done. --tomThread Previous | Thread Next