Peter Love wrote:
>
> In this case I can split it into 5 separate REGEXPs, but others might
> come up in the future. In the future, could the whole REGEXP be
> enclosed in quotes or something like that?
>
And Jeremy Wadsack wrote:
> How about enclosing it in slashes, a la` Perl. Instead of
>
> USERINCLUDE REGEXP:sret\d,pklove
>
> use
>
> USERINCLUDE /sret\d/,/pklove/
I agree something needs to be done. So let's think what.
First, slashes are definitely out. Consider
FILEINCLUDE /~sret1/
I suppose
FILEINCLUDE REGEXP:/~sret1/
would work, but it still doesn't mean what you expect it to mean.
Quotes seem better. It is theoretically possible that a REGEXP might
genuinely begin with a quote, which would mess things up. But it doesn't
seem all that likely. Less likely than wanting a comma, anyway. :)
Another option, which would be completely unambiguous, would be to require
REGEXP:s to continue to the end of the line. So
USERINCLUDE REGEXP:user\d,REGEXP:sret\d
would then have to be spelled out as
USERINCLUDE REGEXP:user\d
USERINCLUDE REGEXP:sret\d
Anyone have any views on which solution is best -- or another better
solution?
--
Stephen Turner http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/
Statistical Laboratory, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WB, England
"The new operating system will recover more easily from system crashes."
(Microsoft, aiming high with Windows Millennium)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
mailing list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe" in the main BODY OF THE MESSAGE.
List archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
