On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 21:47, Glenn Fowler <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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:...) > I thought "re" in "re-type" is the same as "re" in "redo". :( I was really confused. > > _______________________________________________ > ast-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users >
_______________________________________________ ast-users mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users
