On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Glenn Linderman wrote:
: Damian Conway wrote:
: > For an C without modifiers, (...) are certainly unambiguous as delimiters.
: > So I think they should be allowed. Of course, it's Larry's call and he may
: > well prefer the simplicity of a blanket prohibition.
:
: So one thin
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> because the rules and patterns are no longer regular, but if rx isn't a
> short form of regex, what is it a short form of?
It's a short form of "r$x" for some value of "$x" ;).
/s
Glenn Linderman asked:
> So one thing that bothers me in the whole discussion of rule vs rx
> differences and similarities, is that there was a previous discussion
> that said "regular expression" and "regex" should be deprecated terms
> because the rules and patterns are no longer regular, but i
Damian Conway wrote:
> For an C without modifiers, (...) are certainly unambiguous as delimiters.
> So I think they should be allowed. Of course, it's Larry's call and he may
> well prefer the simplicity of a blanket prohibition.
So one thing that bothers me in the whole discussion of rule vs rx
Luke Palmer wrote:
> Hang on... I thought parens weren't allowed as delimiters. Or does that
> not apply to rx()?
Well, yes, we *did* say that in A5 and E5.
But we were thinking of m// and s/// in particular and of patterns with
modifiers (which might take argument lists) in general.
For an
> > The only extra piece of syntactic sugar that C is giving us over
> > C[*] is the ability to have arbitrary delimiters.
>
> Not quite arbitrary. Alphanumerics aren't allowed, nor are colon or
> parens.
Aww, no alphanumerics anymore. That's too bad; it was so nice in poetry
to be able to wri
>>Not quite arbitrary. Alphanumerics aren't allowed, nor are colon or
>>parens.
>
> Of course. I didn't want to poison my entire sentence with footnotes
> for the obvious exceptions.
Yes. It wasn't directed at you particularly, but at those for whom the
exception isn't obvious. The problem bei
> > The only extra piece of syntactic sugar that C is giving us over
> > C[*] is the ability to have arbitrary delimiters.
> Not quite arbitrary. Alphanumerics aren't allowed, nor are colon or
> parens.
Of course. I didn't want to poison my entire sentence with footnotes
for the obvious excepti
Markus Laire asked:
> So, would this be right short explanation:
>
> o: backtrack fails preceding atom (as atom fails, it's skipped)
> o:: backtrack fails surrounding group (OK)
> o::: backtrack fails rule (OK)
> obacktrack fails whole match
>
> S
Debbie Pickett wrote:
> So . . correct me if I'm wrong . . .
>
> C allows us to define both named and anonymous rules,
Yes.
> depending on context.
Depending on whether or not you provide a name.
> C allows us to define only anonymous rules.
Yes. And they can't take parameter lists.
> C
On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 09:57:17PM -0400, Chris Dutton wrote:
> We are supposedly going to be able to set a class to be
> "uninheritable".
Err, I believe the result of that discussion was that unihertiable classes
is a Bad Idea and very easy to work around using delegation.
http:[EMAIL PROTECT
11 matches
Mail list logo
