Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2010
Quoth demerphq@gmail.com (demerphq):
> On 2 August 2010 00:54, karl williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think I like your idea. �Let me make sure I understand. �A tilde
> > immediately following '(?' means that the clustering group is to have the
> > default modifiers, subject to any flags that come after it. �Thus (?~:abc)
> > means all default flags. �(?~x:abc) means the defaults except use the x
> > modifier, and (?~-x:abc) means the defaults without the x modifier, which is
> > a somewhat more complicated way of writing the equivalent (?~:abc).
> >
> > regex stringification could change to output just the non-defaults, or we
> > could leave them as-is, and just add the tilde. �Since we would already be
> > breaking compatibility, I would think we might as well remove them.
> >
> > A tilde is not the ideal choice because it can easily be confused with a
> > minus sign. �I don't know if there are other characters that could be used
> > instead.
>
> Can you paint a picture for me as to how you think this is useful and
> would work in practice? What problem it solves?
>
> Right now I would vote against this idea in terms of minimal benefit
> for long term costs, so maybe I don't understand the point properly.
You may be right.
> Top of my mind questions:
>
> How do you define "the default modifiers"? Assume we have them, and
> they end up user configurable, what happens when a regex is compiled
> in one context and the interpolated in another?
They can't be user-configurable, at least not as far as (?~:) is
concerned. If there is some pragma that sets a 'default' set of
modifiers, then (?~:) must always be with respect to the 'default
default'.
> What is the difference between /(?~i:foo)/ and /(?i)foo/
Nothing. However,
"FOO" !~ /(?~s:foo)/i
but
"FOO" =~ /(?s:foo)/i
Ben
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next