I'd suggest also, that (?[) (with no specified brackets) have the
default meaning
of the "four standard brackets" :
(?['('=')','{'='}','['=']',''='')
Note also the subtle syntax change. We are either dealing with strings
or with patterns. The consensus seems to be against patterns (I can
At 09:05 AM 9/6/00 -0400, David Corbin wrote:
I'd suggest also, that (?[) (with no specified brackets) have the
default meaning
of the "four standard brackets" :
(?['('=')','{'='}','['=']',''='')
Note also the subtle syntax change. We are either dealing with strings
or with patterns. The
It would be useful (and increasingly more common) to be able to match
qr|\s*(\w+)([^]*)| to qr|\s*/\1\s*|, and handle the case where those
can nest as well. Something like
listmatch this with
list
/list not this but
/list this.
I suspect this is going to need a ?[ and ?]
Nathan Wiger wrote:
It would be useful (and increasingly more common) to be able to match
qr|\s*(\w+)([^]*)| to qr|\s*/\1\s*|, and handle the case where those
can nest as well. Something like
listmatch this with
list
/list not this but
/list this.
I suspect
On Tue 05 Sep, Nathan Wiger wrote:
"normal" "reversed"
-- ---
103301
99aa99
(( ))
+ +
{{[!_ _!]}}
{__A1( )A1__}
That is, when a bracket is encountered, the "reverse" of
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Scott Duff" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: XML/HTML-specific ? and ? operators? (was Re: RFC 145
(alternate approach))
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 08:40:37AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
What if we added special XML/HTML-parsing ? and ? operators?
I am working on an RFC
to allow boolean logic ( and || and !) to apply a number of patterns to
the same substring to allow easier mining of information out of such
constructs.
What, you don't like: :-)
$pattern = $conjunction eq "AND"
? join('' = map { "(?=.*$_)" }
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 08:40:37AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
What if we added special XML/HTML-parsing ? and ? operators?
What if we just provided deep enough hooks into the RE engine that
specialized parsing constructs like these could easily be added by
...My point is that I think we're approaching this
the wrong way. We're trying to apply more and more parser power into what
classically has been the lexer / tokenizer, namely our beloved
regular-expression engine.
I've been thinking the same thing. It seems to me that the attempts to
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 03:47:57PM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Mark-Jason" == Mark-Jason Dominus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mark-Jason I have some ideas about how to do this, and I will try to
Mark-Jason write up an RFC this week.
"You want Icon, you know where to find it..." :)
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Numberic Value Ranges In Regular Expressions
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: David Nicol [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 5 september 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Version: 1
Number: 197
Status:
11 matches
Mail list logo
