> This is going to need a much better definition...
Yes, that was my point.
I snipped the following discussion, in which you argued against a
suggestion that I advanced only as an example of something that would
not work.
> (?^baz) should behave as (.*)(?{$1 !~ /baz/})
I don't think that's going to do it. Consider this pattern:
/foo(?^baz)baz/
Here I am trying to match strings like "foobarbaz" and "foo---baz"
that have a foo and a baz separated by something else that is not a
baz. But with your definition,
"foobazbaz" =~ /foo(?^baz)baz/
is true, when I wanted it to be false. This is because the (?^baz)
matches the empty string after the 'o', and the "baz" in the pattern
matches the first baz in the string, instead of the second one.
> I think one should outlaw .* before or after a (?^foo) construct, as
> the result is meaningless.
As it stands now the whole notion is meaningless, because you have not
given it a meaning.
Can you provide a detailed explanation of just what is and what is not
outlawed? I presume that .+ is also forbidden. What about a*, .?,
.{3}, etc.?
I wonder if this restriction is really necessary?
> I can tighten the definition up. If there have been calls for a
> (?^baz) type construct before, there will be again. It is a matter of
> getting the definition straightforward and useable.
Yes, I agree completely. I am looking forward to the next version of
your RFC.
