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

Re: RFC: New regex modifier flags; also the whimsical nature of backward compatibility; new 'r' flag has issues

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
karl williamson
Date:
August 6, 2010 12:58
Subject:
Re: RFC: New regex modifier flags; also the whimsical nature of backward compatibility; new 'r' flag has issues
Message ID:
4C5C6947.8050505@khwilliamson.com
David Golden wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 2:00 PM, karl williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
>>  Perhaps people more familiar with the nuances of Perl will see more.  The
>> output follows (note that cmp, ge, and x would be forbidden under our new
>> policy):
>>
>> Pre-existing potential conflicts: cmp, cos, exec, exp, ge, m, pipe, pop,
>> pos, s , semop, x
>>
>>  New potential conflicts: close, else, grep, lc, le, log, or, our, sleep,
>> splice , uc, use, xor
>>
>>  New potential conflicts with /t: exists, exit, getc, getpgrp, gmtime, goto,
>> gt,  msgget, oct, reset, semget, setpgrp, sort, tie, time, times, tr
>>
>>  New potential conflicts with /d: die, do, ord, redo, rmdir
> 
> I'm not sure all of these are real conflicts.  Since s/// and m// are
> expressions, wouldn't anything after them have to be another operator
> or else a statement modifier?  I think that cuts it down a lot.
> 
> David
> 

That's why it says 'potential'.  It was just a quick program to narrow 
the choices so that someone more intelligent than the program could 
quickly eyeball them to look for operators or statement modifiers. 
Presumably I fit that bill, and found no conflicts in /d; and just gt 
with /t, and le with /l.  But maybe I don't know all the operators or 
statement modifiers.

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