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

Zefram <zefram@fysh.org> wrote:
:For our present purpose, I'd be happy with any of
:
:	_ ^ ~ * .

FWIW, I like ^, I'd be happy with ~ or *, I dislike . and _.

I quite like the mnemonic sense of ^ as "starting with a clean sheet", or
"anchoring [the flags] to a known set", though I wouldn't suggest trying
to mention or explain that in the documentation.

I find all of ^ ~ * to be sufficiently visually distinctive (at least in
any font I'm used to using). I don't find any mnemonic argument for or
against ~. I find the quantifier sense of * slightly distracting, in that
it seems to contradict any mnemonic sense for its use in this context.

I dislike . because I don't find it sufficiently visually distinctive,
and because it's "any" sense seems to contradict any mnemonic sense for
its use in this context.

I dislike _ because it is a word character, and because it is not
distinctive enough from -.

Hugo

• 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