develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from September 2014

Re: RFC: implementing script runs

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Ricardo Signes
Date:
September 29, 2014 12:41
Subject:
Re: RFC: implementing script runs
Message ID:
20140929124130.GA22572@cancer.codesimply.com
* Abigail <abigail@abigail.be> [2014-09-29T04:59:16]
> In a recent, private communication with Yves, I remarked that we only
> have 11 \X's (where X is any ASCII letter) unassigned and hence, we should
> be very carefully when assigning meaning to the ones left, and don't use
> it for a feature that won't be used a lot.
> 
> Or not use for something where alternative syntax is available. Since it's
> about matching characters with certain properties, instead of \i or \j,
> one could also use \p? For instance, \w\p{:PREVIOUS_SCRIPT}* .

I wonder if, rather than affecting the previous atom, it wouldn't be more
useful to set a scope for single-script matching.

  (?«onescript»:\w+\d+\.\d+)

I really haven't given this deep thought.  It just popped into my head and I'm
heading out, so I'm getting it written down before I forget to think about it
more.

-- 
rjbs

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