Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2010
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@gmx.de>wrote: > [Note: the following reply is based on the consensus reached in > previous discussion.] > > * Abigail <abigail@abigail.be> [2010-08-19 16:40]: > > 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 (?~:). > > Such code will break anyway, because the default will soon change > to include a new flag that specifies the Unicode behaviour. > Furthermore, switching to (?~:) will avoid breaking code when we add /z to 5.18 (for example). (?~:) breaks less.Thread Previous | Thread Next