Re: RFC 110 (v2) counting matches

[Mark-Jason Dominus]

 On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 08:47:25 -0400, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
 
 m/.../Count,Insensitive   (instead of m/.../ti)
 
 That would escape the problem that we are running out of letters and
 also the problem that the current letters are hard to remember.
 
 Yes, but wouldn't this give us backward compatibility problems? For
 example, code like
 
   $result = m/(.)/Insensitive, ord $1;

No, because that is presently a syntax error.  The one you have to
watch out for is:

$result = m/(.)/s,Insensitive, ord $1;

 And, I don't really see the need for the comma.
 
 m/.../CountInsensitive   (instead of m/.../ti)

I guess, but to me CountInsensitive looks like one option, not two.

Re: RFC 110 (v2) counting matches

[Bart Lateur]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:00:43 -0400, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:

 And, I don't really see the need for the comma.
 
 m/.../CountInsensitive   (instead of m/.../ti)

I guess, but to me CountInsensitive looks like one option, not two.

That goes fot this too.

:   m/.../iCount  (instead of m/.../it)

-- 
Bart.

Re: RFC 110 (v2) counting matches

[Tom Christiansen]

If we want to use uppercase, make these unique as well. That gives us
many more combinations, and is not necessarily confusing:

   m//f  -  fast match
   m//F  -  first match
   m//i  -  case-insentitive
   m//I  -  ignore whitespace
   
And so on. This seems like a much more productive use, otherwise we're
just wasting characters.

Larry's on record as preferring not to have us going down the road
of using distinct upper and lower case regex switches.  The distance
between //c and //C, say, is far too narrow.

--tom

Re: RFC 110 (v2) counting matches

[David L. Nicol]

Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
 
 It occurs to me that since none of the capital letters are taken, we
 could adopt the convention that a capital letter as a regex modifier
 will introduce a *word* which continues up to the next comma. 


Excelsior!


-- 
  David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Yum, sidewalk eggs!