Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2015
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:33 AM, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 October 2015 at 04:50, Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org>
> wrote:
> > * Karl Williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> [2015-10-18T00:16:44]
> >> 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.
> >
> > Thanks, I was confused.
> >
> >> I don't have an opinion on this.
> >
> > I'm not strongly opinionated on this, but: I think that I would find it
> useful
> > to say:
> >
> > If you want to put comments into a regular expression, you have two
> > options. You use /x and then insert space and any kind of comments
> between
> > tokens, or you can skip /x and use (?#...) between tokens.
> >
> > That is: always allow (?#...) in those places where space and comments
> become
> > allowed under /x.
>
>
> I really dont like this. A) it complicates the regex engine, and B) it
> makes a mockery of what an expert would consider to be one token.
>
> so for instance to *me*: a{1,10} is a single token.
>
Whether whitespace is allowed within or not, exports would not consider
that a token. Tokens are indivisible, yet a number of parts of "a{1,10}"
are optional. That pattern has 6 tokens ("a", "{", "1", ",", "10", "}").
> a(?#whatever){1,10} is two "tokens".
Still the same 6 tokens.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next