--- 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 it
--- 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 - form for
-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
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
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Perl6 Language List perl6-language@perl.org
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: should we change [^a-z] to -[a..z] instead of -[a-z]?
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 21:32 -0700
delurk
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?)
/delurk
I was assuming from Larry's mail that [a...] would parse as either:
On 14 Apr, Larry Wall wrote:
: In writing some character class translation, I realized that
:
: -[a-z]
:
: and its ilk are rather hard to read because of the two hyphens
: that mean different things. We can't use ![a-z] because that's a
: 0-width lookahead. Given that we're trying to get
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) to
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 the
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 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 view
At 5:21 PM -0700 4/14/05, Larry Wall wrote:
In writing some character class translation, I realized that
-[a-z]
and its ilk are rather hard to read because of the two hyphens
that mean different things. We can't use ![a-z] because that's a
0-width lookahead. Given that we're trying to get
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 if
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. But
the
14 matches
Mail list logo
