On 25 April 2014 06:38, Abigail abig...@abigail.be wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:47:04AM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
I'm with Mark. My view is that a /\d/ is almost always wrong, on any perl
released in this century.
/\d/a or /(?a:\d)/ is just a really ugly and confusing way to write
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 07:38:55AM +0200, Abigail wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:47:04AM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
On 24/04/2014 23:28, Mark Fowler wrote:
On Thursday, April 24, 2014, Michael Lush mjl...@gmail.com wrote:
if ($x =~ /^246[2-9]\d{6}$/ and $x =~
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:47 PM, David Cantrell da...@cantrell.org.uk wrote:
Mark wrote:
Those /d are incorrect. You want [0-9] or to use the /a regexp flag on a
suitably modern perl.
My regexes come directly from Google's libphonenumber. They are happy to
accept patches provided you sign
May is one of those terribly confusing months, but in accordance with
ancient tradition some of us will be following the ORIGINAL AND BEST
calendar and meeting in the Trinity Arms in Brixton to quaff pints of
delicious ale on Thursday the 1st of May.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:37:17PM -0400, Mark Fowler wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:47 PM, David Cantrell da...@cantrell.org.uk wrote:
Mark wrote:
Those /d are incorrect. You want [0-9] or to use the /a regexp flag on a
suitably modern perl.
My regexes come directly from Google's
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:37:17PM -0400, Mark Fowler wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
I require no such blood sacrifice for my code, but do insist that
the tests still pass on perl 5.8.8.
That makes sense. So we sadly can't use /a.
Although you can use fancy new features in the build scripts.
