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

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

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
karl williamson
Date:
August 12, 2010 20:15
Subject:
Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers?
Message ID:
4C64B8AD.3060804@khwilliamson.com
Ben Morrow wrote:
> 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
> 
Do you want a warning or an error?

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