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

Re: qr stringification: why are xism always present? I'm worriedabout backward compatibility

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Abigail
Date:
August 19, 2010 07:36
Subject:
Re: qr stringification: why are xism always present? I'm worriedabout backward compatibility
Message ID:
20100819143739.GB22963@almanda
On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 11:24:08AM -0600, karl williamson wrote:
> I've been working on adding the regex modifiers for  
> unicode/locale/traditional semantics; and am almost ready.
>


I'm finally catching up on p5p after YAPC.


After reading the entire thread, I can't say I really see the benefits
of the proposed (?~) construct. Sure, with enough imagination, one can
think of obscure contructs that will break. OTOH, in the past, I've
written code that actually scans for (?xism:) constructs and modifies
them. Such code would break if (?xism:) is going to be replaced with (?~:).

I also don't really like the idea of "just enable whatever is the default
on the current version of Perl". '(?si-xm:)' tells me exactly what's
enabled, and what's disabled, regardless of the Perl version. (?~) doesn't
tell me that.


I think the discussion ended with "let's not do it". If not, consider this
a -1.


Abigail

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