develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from July 2010

Re: PATCH: [perl #76424] revised: document existing \x \000 behavior

Thread Previous
From:
David Golden
Date:
July 12, 2010 12:03
Subject:
Re: PATCH: [perl #76424] revised: document existing \x \000 behavior
Message ID:
AANLkTilMd3r6OddZI0G1uzj-iWdyWyiwZuIloa5roaOV@mail.gmail.com
Thanks, applied as bf82ca4d61f02d133cd23249540eb335feffac71

Sounds like we're moving in the right direction.

David

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:31 PM, karl williamson
<public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
> David Golden wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 7:10 PM, karl williamson
>> <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is a revised patch based on people's feedback.
>>>
>>> I think it is a waste of time to worry too much about the wording of the
>>> \000 part, as I'm close to submitting patches that clean up a number of
>>> the
>>> problems, and so the wording is in flux anyway.
>>
>> After reading through the revised patch, two thoughts came to mind:
>>
>> * I'd like to see octal escapes moved to the bottom of the list.  The
>> most confusing one should not be first.
>
> I agree.  Revised patch attached doing this and a couple other changes; see
> below.
>>
>> * Should we just flag octal escapes as "discouraged" (note -- not
>> "deprecated") due to the legacy confusion?  Are your other patches
>> coming going to fix this octal mess?
>
> The next patch adds \o{} which side steps the whole problem.  Later patches
> fix the extraneous NUL in [\8], and otherwise clean up the misleading
> warnings.
>
> I guess I'll fix the misleading \x warnings as well.  I'd also like to
> change \xg to not generate a NUL, but to be just 'g', but I have a feeling
> that will be a backwards compatibility issue.  But to that end, I added the
> word 'currently' in describing the behavior, to put the reader on notice
> that they shouldn't be relying on that.
>
> I also changed the order so that \x{} is first.  And, I realized it isn't
> just for wide characters, but any characters, and in fact we prefer it over
> \x without the braces for several reasons, discussed recently here.  \x
> without the braces is only for 'narrow' or 'short' characters.  I'm not sure
> which would be the better term.  'wide' and 'long' are used variously in
> other pods.
>
>

Thread Previous


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