On 5/14/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 01:15:36AM +0000, Luke Palmer wrote:
> : I think the misunderstanding is rather simple. You keep talking like
> : you prepend a .*? to the rule we're matching. I think that's wrong
> : (and this is where I'm making a design call, so we can dispute on this
> : once we're clear that it's this that is being disputed). I think
> : there is a special rule:
> :
> : rule matchanywhere($rx) { .*? <$rx> }
> :
> : Which makes a *subrule call* to the rule we're matching. Therefore
> : ::: just breaks out of that subrule, and backtracks into the .*?
> : again.
>
> I want ::: to break out of *that* dynamic scope (or the equivalent
> "matchrighthere" scope), but not ::.
I'm not sure that's such a good idea. When you say:
rule foo() { a* ::: b }
You know precisely where that ::: is going to take you: right out of
the rule. That's the way it works in grammars, and there's no
implicit anything else that you're breaking out of. But you're saying
that when we use a bare // matching a string, that's no longer the
case? In other words, this:
$str ~~ / a* ::: b /
Is different from:
$str ~~ / <foo> /
That seems like a pretty obvious indirection, and a mistake to break
it. There's nothing there except <foo>, how could it act differently?
Luke
