On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 11:19:42AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>       <$rule>         N       indirect rule 
>       <::$rulename>   N       indirect symbolic rule 
>       <@rules>        N       like '@rules'
>       <%rules>        N       like '%rules'
>       <{ code }>      N       code produces a rule
>       <&foo()>        N       subroutine returns rule
>       <( code )>      N       code must return true or backtracking ensues
> Here the leading tokens are actually "<$", "<::$", "<@", "<%", "<{", "<&", 
> and "<(", and I suspect we have "<?$", "<?::$", "<?@", and "<!$", "<!::$",
> "<!@", etc. counterparts.  

Oops.  After re-reading A05 I would now assume we don't have
non-capturing counterparts for <$rule>, <@rules>, <%rules>, ... --
they're already non capturing.  From A05:

    [Update: Only rules of the form <ident> are captured by 
    default. You can use := to force capture of anything else, 
    or the :keepall adverb to capture everything else.]

Somewhere I thought I read that <$rule> captures to $/{'$rule'},
but I don't find it now, so if A05 holds here, then we don't
need "<?$", "<?@", "<?::$", etc.  (Whew!)  Somehow I much prefer
A05's formulation, in that only rules of the form <ident>
capture, and we use aliases or parentheses to capture anything

Thus one can say that <+alpha>, <-alpha>, <[aeiou]>, <!alpha>, <?alpha>, 
<$alpha>, <@alpha>, etc. are all non-capturing constructs.


Reply via email to