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

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?

• 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