On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:36:34 +0800 Clark Wang wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:50, Glenn Fowler <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > there was a post explaining this
> > > > any ~(x:...) re-type switch to an 'x' form where ')' is not special
> > will
> > > > fail
> > > > because the parser doesn't know where the pattern ends
> >
> > > I saw that post. So we have to document it if we don't plan to fix it.
> >
> > it does need to be documented
> > but "fix" implies "bug"
> >
> I'm not a native English speaker. I even don't quite understand what
> `re-type switch' means in your recent posts. :) But I myself don't mind
> those kind of things (like improvements or RFEs) be called bugs as
> techinically there're ways to "fix" them.
RE(as in regular expression)-type switch
the two ksh forms:
~(E)...
~(E:...)
_______________________________________________
ast-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users
