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

Re: RFC: implementing script runs

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Tom Christiansen
September 29, 2014 13:49
Re: RFC: implementing script runs
Message ID:
Abigail <> wrote on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:08:56 +0200:

>On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 08:41:30AM -0400, Ricardo Signes wrote:

>> * Abigail <> [2014-09-29T04:59:16]

>> 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<SNIP>
>> heading out, so I'm getting it written down before I forget to think a<SNIP>
>> more.

Too bad /o was long ago already taken.

> I think that's a better syntax that either the proposed quantifier
> modifier, or the escape sequences, as you can enforce longer (sub)patterns
> to be in one script than just a run.

> It's on par with the modifier proposal when it comes to usefulness, except
> that your proposal doesn't use a single letter modifier (another thing we
> won't have an endless supply off either), but uses a full word.

I again wonder about collecting multiples of the long modifiers, maybe:


Except that (?{ is taken.  So is (?< and IIRC also now (?[.   We've run
out of opening/closing paired ASCII stuff.  (?(  is just not reasonable.

> The non-ASCII characters, I just consider them to be typos ;-)

They might be, if I could remember how to typo them.

Be that as it may, we're still stuck with the not-enough-pairs problem.

C trigraphs were always a mistake to many people's minds, but I guess 
we could perhaps digraph that into (?<<onescript,insensitive>>:...).

Of course, that already means something, which is trouble.

No, those are not intended to be emotica.  I think. ;-{


Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About