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

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 09:13:06AM +0100, Zefram wrote:
> Ronald J Kimball wrote:
> >my @options_on  = qw/ s a /;  # where a and b are hypothetical options
> >my @options_off = qw/ i b /;  # that are on by default
> 
> No options are on by default.

I know that's the current state, but is that a guarantee going forwards?
If options will always be off by default, then we probably don't need
(?.m-i:) at all; (?.m) would be sufficient.  (And my objection to Ben's
proposal would be moot. :)

I note that Karl mentioned that the new regex modifiers - /l, /u, and /d -
are "automatically inserted" under the appropriate conditions.  I don't
know if that means they are "on by default" with regards to (?.)

Ronald

• 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