Larry Wall:
> Juerd:
>> Ruud:
>>> Maybe
>>> "\x{123a 123b 123c}"
>>> is a nice alternative of
>>> "\x{123a} \x{123b} \x{123c}".
>>
>> Hmm, very cute and friendly! Can we keep it, please? Please?
Thanks for the support.
> We already have, from A5, \x[0a;0d], so you can supposedly say
> "\x[123a;123b;123c]"
<rereading apo5 />
Found it in the old/new table on page 7. For me the semicolon is fine.
I am using character names more and more, and between those, semicolons
are less cluttery. Character names can contain spaces, but semicolons
too? If not then
\c[BEL; EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT ZERO] would be possible, but maybe
better not, or more like
\c['BEL'; 'EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT ZERO'] or even
\c('BEL', 'EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT ZERO').
Something else:
The '^' could be used for both the ultimate start- and end-of-string.
This frees the '$'.
There is still the '$$' that matches before embedded newlines, and since
'^^' matches after those newlines, the '^^' and '$$' can only be unified
to '^^' if it is one-width inside a string, so is like '[$$\n^^]' (or
just '\n') there.
At start- and end-of-string the '^^' can still be a zero-width match.
I am not sure about greedy (meaning to try one-width first) or
non-greedy.
Example: '^[(\N*)^^]*^' to capture all lines, clean of newlines.
Not a lot clearer than '^[(\N*)\n*]*$', but freeing the '$' and '$$'
might be worth it.
<mess about '^^+', '^+^' and '^*^' (bats!) removed>
--
Affijn, Ruud
"Gewoon is een tijger."
