Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating default regex modifiers?

On 10 August 2010 23:32, karl williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
> If we're going to do this, I'd like to do it now before the new regex
> modifiers go in.
>
> Aristotle withdrew his opposition and became a supporter after he understood
> what the proposal really was.  Sorry for being unclear.
>
> If there's no opposition, we need to settle on what is the syntax is. Ben
> originally proposed (?~  I thought (?.  was better because the tilde can be
> too easily confused with a hyphen, (?-  which is also legal right after the
> question mark.
>
> Another option is to make it a two character sequence, the first one is a
> tilde, say, and I'm not sure what the second one should be.  This would
> allow future expansion so that some other 2nd char could mean something
> else.  Mostly people wouldn't type this, it would be inserted by the regex
> compiler.

Karl can you present this to us as it might be documented in perlre?

Im still having a hard time grokking this one....

Yves




-- 
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"

• Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating default regexmodifiers? by karl williamson
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by Ben Morrow
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by Zefram
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by karl williamson
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by Zefram
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating default regex modifiers? by hv
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating default regex modifiers? by Nicholas Clark
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by demerphq
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating default regex modifiers? by demerphq
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by karl williamson
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by Ben Morrow
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by karl williamson
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by Ben Morrow
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by karl williamson
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by Ben Morrow
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating default regex modifiers? by Ronald J Kimball
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by Ben Morrow
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating default regex modifiers? by Ronald J Kimball
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by Zefram
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating default regex modifiers? by Ronald J Kimball
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by karl williamson
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by Ben Morrow
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by karl williamson
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by Ben Morrow
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by karl williamson
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by Ben Morrow
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating default regex modifiers? by Eirik Berg Hanssen
• Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers? by karl williamson