Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2010
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:26:56AM +0100, Ben Morrow wrote: > Quoth public@khwilliamson.com (karl williamson): > > Ben Morrow wrote: > > > At 11AM -0600 on 11/08/10 you (karl williamson) wrote: > > >> Ben Morrow wrote: > > >>> 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. I don't agree with the justification for disallowing (?.-i: . Perhaps someone will want to emphasize that case insensitive matching is turned off in a certain case. Perhaps someone will write a regex generator that allows the user to specify which options are on and which are off. Disallowing (?.-i: means the program would have to keep track of which options were off by default. The program would also have to be updated each time a new option was added to the language. I don't think there's anything gained by disallowing the syntax, but there are things gained by allowing it. RonaldThread Previous | Thread Next