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

At 11AM -0600 on 11/08/10 you (karl williamson) wrote:
> Ben Morrow wrote:
> > Quoth public@khwilliamson.com (karl williamson):
> >> +Starting in Perl 5.14, a C<.> (dot) immediately after the C<?> is a
> >> +shorthand equivalent to C<-imsx>.  Any positive or negative flags may
> >> +follow the dot, so
> >> +
> >> +    (?.x-i:foo)
> >> +
> >> +is equivalent to
> >> +
> >> +    (?x-ims:foo)
> >> +
> >> +(The C<-i> wasn't necessary, but did no harm.)
> > 
> > FWIW I'm not convinced allowing (?.-i:
> 
> Please explain your concerns.

It's always redundant, so any situation where it appears is
unnecessarily confusing. (You do realise I'm not talking about -i
specifically, but about *any* negated flags?)

To go back to my chmod analogy, we have a+x and a-x and a=x, but not
a=-x, because that would be silly.

Ben

• 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