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

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

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Ronald J Kimball
Date:
August 15, 2010 07:32
Subject:
Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating default regex modifiers?
Message ID:
20100815143240.GA22075@penkwe.pair.com
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

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