Quoth public@khwilliamson.com (karl williamson): > 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. > > Do you want a warning or an error? I want it to not be valid syntax, just as though I'd written /(?.x!i:foo)/ or anything else invalid. I suppose that means 'error', but just an ordinary 'Sequence not recognized in regex' error, not a special case. BenThread Previous | Thread Next