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

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

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
karl williamson
Date:
August 15, 2010 09:25
Subject:
Re: Any opposition still to the idea of syntax indicating defaultregex modifiers?
Message ID:
4C6814F6.6080607@khwilliamson.com
Ronald J Kimball wrote:
> 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
> 

Yes, /d is on by default.

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