> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Hodges [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 1:30 PM
> To: Larry Wall; perl6-language@perl.org
> Subject: Re: should we change [^a-z] to <-[a..z]> instead of <-[a-z]>?
>
>
> ---
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
. . .
> <-[a..z]>
>
> should be allowed/encouraged/required. It greatly improves the
> readability in my estimation. The only problem with requiring .. is
> that people *will* write <[a-z]> out of habit, and we would probably
> have to outlaw the
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:28:31AM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
> : David Wheeler wrote:
> :
> : >But the first person to write <[a...]> gets what's comin' to 'em.
> :
> : Is that nothing (since '.' lt 'a'), or everything after 'a'?
>
> Might as well make
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:28:31AM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
: David Wheeler wrote:
:
: >But the first person to write <[a...]> gets what's comin' to 'em.
:
: Is that nothing (since '.' lt 'a'), or everything after 'a'?
Might as well make it everything after 'a' for consistency. One could
also vi
David Wheeler wrote:
But the first person to write <[a...]> gets what's comin' to 'em.
Is that nothing (since '.' lt 'a'), or everything after 'a'?
-- Rod Adams
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 01:01:58PM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> Aaron Sherman wrote in perl.perl6.language :
> >
> > A silly question: is there a canonical character set from which we
> > extract these ranges? Are we hard-coding Unicode here, or is there some
> > way for the user to specify
Aaron Sherman wrote in perl.perl6.language :
>
> A silly question: is there a canonical character set from which we
> extract these ranges? Are we hard-coding Unicode here, or is there some
> way for the user to specify the character set for ranges?
Perl 5 forces [a-z] (or [i-j] for that matter) t
>
> even sillier question:
> if <[a.z]> matches "a", "." and "z"
> and <[a...]> matches all characters from "a" including (for some
> definition of 'all')
>
> how will be range \x21 .. \x2e written?
> <[!..\.]>? (i.e. "." escaped?)
>
I was assuming from Larry's mail that <[a...]> would parse as
- Original Message -
From: "Aaron Sherman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Wheeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Perl6 Language List"
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: should we change [^a-z] to <-[a..z]> instead of <-[
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 21:32 -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:06 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>
> > So, <[a.z]> matches "a", ".", and "z",
> > while <[a..z]> matches characters "a" through "z" inclusive.
>
> I was going to say that that was inconsistent, but since you ne
David Wheeler skribis 2005-04-14 21:32 (-0700):
> I was going to say that that was inconsistent, but since you never need
> to repeat a letter in a character class, well, I guess it isn't. But
> the first person to write <[a...]> gets what's comin' to 'em.
Given ASCII, <[\x20...]> would then be
On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:06 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
So, <[a.z]> matches "a", ".", and "z",
while <[a..z]> matches characters "a" through "z" inclusive.
I was going to say that that was inconsistent, but since you never need
to repeat a letter in a character class, well, I guess it isn't.
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:21:05PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Given that we're trying to get rid of special
> exceptions, and - in character classes is weird, and we already
> use .. for ranges everywhere else, and nobody is going to put a
> repeated character into a character class, I'm wondering
13 matches
Mail list logo
