Richard Proctor wrote:
>
> No ?] should match the closest ?[ it should nest the ?[s bound by any
> brackets in the regex and act accordingly.
Good point.
> Also this does not work as a definition of simple bracket matching as you
> need ( to match ) not ( to match (. A ?[ list should specify for each
> element what the matching element is perhaps
Actually, it should with some simple precedence rules. If ?] reverses
the ordering of ?[, *and* we define "reversing" for bracketed pairs
consistent with the current Perl definition in other contexts, then this
is all automatic:
"normal" "reversed"
-------------- ---------------
103 301
99a a99
(( ))
<+ +>
{{[!<_ _>!]}}
{__A1( )A1__}
That is, when a bracket is encountered, the "reverse" of that is
automatically interpreted as its closing counterpart. This is the same
reason why qq// and qq() and qq{} all work without special notation.
So we can replace @^g and @^G with simple precendence rules, the same
that are actually invoked automatically throughout Perl already.
> (?[( => ),{ => }, 01 => 10)
>
> sort of hashish in style.
I actually think this is redundant, for the reasons I mentioned above.
I'm not striking it down outright, but it seems simple rules could make
all this unnecessary.
-Nate
