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

Re: qr stringification: why are xism always present? I'm worriedabout backward compatibility

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Aristotle Pagaltzis
Date:
August 9, 2010 15:55
Subject:
Re: qr stringification: why are xism always present? I'm worriedabout backward compatibility
Message ID:
20100809225549.GD31924@klangraum.plasmasturm.org
* Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> [2010-08-10 00:45]:
> The 'expansion' of (?~i:) as a (?i-xsm:) expression changes,
> but the semantics implied do not.

Ahh. So Karl’s reply that “the defaults can never change” was
a refutation of my point about how the same regex would imply
different things across different versions of Perl if we had
`(?~:)` notation. Whereas I understood Karl to be saying that
the set of flags implied by it must never change.

Under that premise (which I think should be explicitly documented
for `(?~:)` if it does get added) I agree, it’s a good idea with
no discernible downside.

(Wow, in turns out most of this thread was superfluous…)

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>

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