Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2015
On 10/17/2015 07:53 PM, Ricardo Signes wrote: > * Abigail <abigail@abigail.be> [2015-10-14T07:43:05] >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 03:42:29PM -0700, Karl Williamson via RT wrote: >>> >>> My only stance on this is that I think (but am convince-able the other >>> way) that under /x, anywhere there is a # comment, should also allow a >>> (?#...) comment >> >> I agree. And I'd throw whitespace in it as well: anywhere where we >> ignore whitespace under /x, we should allow a # comment, and hence, >> should allow a (?#...) comment. > > I wish I'd read your testing out of this before going through and doing it > myself. :-) > > Anyway, I agree. While I'd rather nobody actually write this, I think that's a > matter of style. Anyway: making it a matter of grammar would require either > weird inconsistency or breakage. > Just to make sure everyone understands. Currently (?#...) comments are allowed even when there is no /x. We probably have to support that in the places where it's been that way all along, but we could decide to not support them in the places that I just added, when not under /x. Thus, we could say that you can't split a quantifier from its atom except under /x. I don't have an opinion on this.Thread Previous | Thread Next