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

Re: [perl #122853] Guarantee 0-9, A-Z, a-z character classes

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Glenn Golden
Date:
October 31, 2014 01:07
Subject:
Re: [perl #122853] Guarantee 0-9, A-Z, a-z character classes
Message ID:
20141031010649.GF5552@huh.zplane.com
Father Chrysostomos via RT <perlbug-followup@perl.org> [2014-10-30 16:37:43 -0700]:
> On Thu Oct 30 16:28:09 2014, gdg@zplane.com wrote:
> > Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi@iki.fi> [2014-10-30 19:14:25 -0400]:
> > >
> > > On Thursday-201410-30, 19:12, Father Chrysostomos via RT wrote:
> > > >>... and if we step outside ASCII, what do you think X-Χ should match?
> > >
> > 
> > [X-X] 'ɹǝʇʇɐɯ ʇɐɥʇ ɹoɟ 'ɹO
> 
> ·ǝɔᴉʍʇ ɹǝʇɔɐɹɐɥɔ ǝɯɐs ǝɥʇ pǝsn no⅄
> 
¿(⇂)po ɥʇıʍ ɹo ʎʃʃɐnsıʌ pǝuıɯɹǝʇǝp ʇɐɥʇ sɐʍ ʇnq 'ɥƃnouǝ ǝnɹ⊥

In any case, it's not obvious (to a human reader of the source code)
whether X is or isn't the 24th element of [A-Z].

Otoh, as a complete outsider, I probably shouldn't even be injecting my
uninformed opinion, since I likely don't appreciate many of the subtleties.
But the crystal clarity of ignorance is compelling, so will simply opine
that, imo, supporting non-ascii ranges using legacy syntax seems to make
the same amount of sense as supporting non-ascii method names and operators
(also recently debated): Superficially attractive -- egalitarian, easy to
root for because it's so fair-sounding and non-chauvinistic -- but in the
long run, potentially leading to source balkanization and maintenance issues,
which are non-obvious, difficult to anticipate, and probably tricky (perhaps
even impossible) to resolve cleanly in the future.

Just my 2c. Please educate me if I'm off base.

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