develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from December 2009

Re: POSIX-like syntax or full compliancy? (Was: PATCH: partial [perl#58182] ...)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
karl williamson
December 11, 2009 11:13
Re: POSIX-like syntax or full compliancy? (Was: PATCH: partial [perl#58182] ...)
Message ID:
demerphq wrote:
> 2009/12/11 Juerd Waalboer <>:
>> karl williamson skribis 2009-12-10 22:29 (-0700):
>>> It was our intention that 5.12 would use strict Posix definitions
>>> rigourously for all these,
>> In that case I'm entirely fine with the change, provided of course that
>> perldelta documents the change as such.
>>> except the perl made-up extension,  [[:Word:]], which has no Posix
>>> definition.
>> Changing the bracket expressions to strict POSIX semantics is an
>> incompatible change. Why keep [:word:]? Not that I really mind, but
>> strict interpretation usually doesn't come with exceptions.

Belaboring the point: But it is strict interpretation.  All Posix 
defined constructs are rigorously Posix.  This is not a Posix construct; 
it looks like one, but it isn't one.
> if we restrict [:word:] to the ascii definition of \w we historically
> have had then we stay true to the spirit of the POSIX definitions
> while getting our underbar too and providing a work around for \w's
> strange behaviour.


> Yves

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About