On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 12:17 -0400, Matt Diephouse wrote:
At this point, you may as well use C.records (think C$/ -- record
separator):
for $foo.records { ... }
Then it'd be a small step to allow:
for $foo.records :sep, { ... }
--or--
for $foo.records(,) { ...
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 15:24, Luke Palmer wrote:
Maybe I'm misundertanding the question, but I think you want negative
lookahead:
Perl 5: /(.*)(?!union)/
You really meant to say
Perl 5: /((?:(?!union).))*/
# Match characters that do not begin the word 'union'
Right?
Peter
(override) because aliases would not have to be known at
compile-time.
Then again, if you have good reasons for the other syntax, I would be
more than happy to hear those as well.
Peter Behroozi
order in normal sub calls goes away, and there is a
happy minimum of extra syntax.
By the way, thanks for pointing out the original discussion; I haven't
been on the list long enough to have known that it existed.
Peter Behroozi
that the balanced rule is something that
should be more deeply tied to the Regex Engine), but I am proposing that
it can simultaneously be very useful and still look nice. Isn't that
justification enough?
Comments are appreciated,
Peter Behroozi
On Sat, 2002-08-17 at 14:31, Brent Dax wrote:
Peter Behroozi:
# After reading over Apocalypse 5 one more time, I noticed that
# balanced matches (like capturing nested parenthetical
# comments ((like this))) had been glossed over in the
# rejection of RFC 145. What was not even mentioned
