在 Sep 28, 2006 3:03 AM 時，Carl Mäsak 寫到：
Audrey ():
Indeed... Though what I'm wondering is, is there a hidden
implementation
cost or design cost of making /foo+/ always behave such that
$foo.from
returns something, compared to the current treatment with the
workaround
you suggested?
Has
Audrey (), Carl ():
Has this been settled or addressed off-list?
'fraid not yet...
Ah. So Warnock applies.
(Side note: when I first read Warnock applies on things in p6
summaries a year or so ago, I thought it was some really energetic
programmer who went around and applied patches as soon
Audrey ():
Indeed... Though what I'm wondering is, is there a hidden implementation
cost or design cost of making /foo+/ always behave such that
$foo.from
returns something, compared to the current treatment with the workaround
you suggested?
Has this been settled or addressed off-list?
在 Sep 22, 2006 10:36 PM 時，Patrick R. Michaud 寫到：
Out of curiosity, why not:
/foo bar bar $xyz:=(foo+)/
and then one can easily look at $xyz.from and $xyz.to, as well
as get to the arrayed elements? (There are other possibilities as
well.)
I'm not arguing in favor of or against the
From S05:
If a subrule appears two (or more) times in any branch of a lexical
scope (i.e. twice within the same subpattern and alternation), or if the
subrule is quantified anywhere within a given scope, then its
corresponding hash entry is always assigned an array of
CMatch objects rather than
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 10:22:52PM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
Moreover:
/foo bar bar foo+/
should set $foo to an Array with two Match elements, the first being a
simple match, and the second has multiple positional submatches.
The thinking behind the separate treatment is that in a
2006/9/22, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Out of curiosity, why not:
/foo bar bar $xyz:=(foo+)/
and then one can easily look at $xyz.from and $xyz.to, as well
as get to the arrayed elements? (There are other possibilities as
well.)
I'm not arguing in favor of or against the
