In RFC 72, Peter Heslin gives this example:
:Imagine a very long input string containing data such as this:
:
:... GCAAGAATTGAACTGTAG ...
:
:If you want to match text that matches /GA+C/, but not when it
:follows /G+A+T+/, you cannot at present do so easily.
I haven't tried to work it out exa
> I'm opposed to an obligation to replace m// and s///. I won't mind the
> ability to give a prototype of "regex" to functions, or even
> *additional* functions, match and subst.
As the RFC basically proposes. The idea is that s///, tr///, and m//
would stay, seemingly unchanged. But they'd actua
In <2914020627.B1479@yogi>, Peter Heslin writes:
[...]
:Bart pointed out that it would be more consistent to use the type of
:syntax you have also (unconsciously?) used:
:
:"abcdef...xyz" =~ /(?<=x+)y/
Nothing unconscious about it: I was suggesting that the cleanest way
to add VLLB would be t
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:47:24 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>One thing to remember is that regex's are already used in a number of
>functions:
>
> @results = grep /^VAR=\w+/, @values;
You are being mislead. You might just as well say that length() is being
used in other functions:
@result
> What's next, replace the regex syntax with something that more closely
> ressembles the rest of Perl?
No.
> Regexes are a language within the language. And not a tiny one.
I know... :-)
> So, if regexes are such a completely different sublanguage, I can see
> the m// and s/// syntax as just
On 30 Aug 2000 02:13:38 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>Replace =~, !~, m//, s///, and tr// with match(), subst(), and trade()
Why?
What's next, replace the regex syntax with something that more closely
ressembles the rest of Perl?
Regexes are a language within the language. And not a tiny
