Larry wrote:
> But the language in the following lexical scope is a constant, so what can
> :syntax($foo) possibly mean? [Wait, this is Damian I'm talking to.]
> Nevermind, don't answer that...
Too late! ;-)
Regex syntaxes already are a twisty maze of variations, mostly alike. I
can easily envisage Perl users occasionally needing/wanting/using
patterns which are any of:
:syntax<POSIX>
:syntax<grep>
:syntax<egrep>
:syntax<vim>
:syntax<Snobol>
:syntax<Google>
Not just because people are used to different syntaxes, but also because
programs will want to accept search patterns in different (generally: more
restrictive) syntaxes so as to be able to interpolate them safely:
use Regex::Google;
for =<> :prompt<Find:> -> $search {
for @texts {
say if m:syntax<Google>/$search/;
}
}
> And there aren't that many regexish languages anyway.
That depends on how broadly you define regexish. Search is a *very* common
activity and people are (re-)inventing notations for it all the time.
Damian
