Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2016
hv@crypt.org writes: > Zefram <zefram@fysh.org> wrote: > > : hv@crypt.org wrote: > : > : > we have exactly > : > that concept with the flags and /(?f:...)/ construct. > : > : It doesn't make sense as a flag in this way. The existing flags > : affect the interpretation of individual regexp elements, so turning > : them on and off locally has obvious semantics. But the script-run > : feature affects the meaning of a whole group. > > Hmm, I mostly see your point, but I also expect the commonest desire > will be to apply a single sr to a whole pattern. So maybe we'll eventually need both. But we could go with adding in-regexp syntax such as (*sr:...) first, then if it turns out that a common use of it is to wrap all the rest of the pattern in it, and if doing that feels awkwardly verbose, a flag could be added which does that for you. Another common case may be that you want each ‘word’ only to use a single script, but you're OK with different words using different scripts. It'd be great if we could come up with some real-world places where users would use this feature, so we can see how they would look in any proposed syntaxes. > I had assumed /(*sr: \w+ x \w+ )/x would require two words sharing a > common script separated by a literal x. Are you expecting rather that > it would require the literal x also to be part of the common script? What about if it were: my $foo = 'x'; /(*sr: \w+ $foo \w+ )/x In that case I think it'd be reasonable to want the \w+-s to be in the same script as the interpolated text. But it'd be surprising if merely abstracting some constant text from a pattern in to a variable changed what it matched. Smylers -- http://twitter.com/Smylers2Thread Previous | Thread Next