Perl6 RFC Librarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Ban Perl hooks into regexes
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 05:41:57AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
. Some criticized it as being too sugary, since this:
$string =~ quotemeta;# $string = quotemeta $string;
Is not as clear as the original. However, there is fairly similar
precedent in:
$x += 5;
On 25 Sep 2000 20:14:52 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
Remove C?{ code }, C??{ code } and friends.
I'm putting the finishing touches on an RFC to drop (?{...}) and replace
it with something far more localized, hence cleaner: assertions, also in
Perl code. That way,
/(?!\d)(\d+)(?{$1
On 25 Sep 2000 20:14:52 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
Remove C?{ code }, C??{ code } and friends.
I'm putting the finishing touches on an RFC to drop (?{...}) and replace
it with something far more localized, hence cleaner: assertions, also in
Perl code. That way,
/(?!\d)(\d+)(?{$1
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 13:32:37 -0400, Michael Maraist wrote:
I can't believe that there currently isn't a means of killing a back-track
based on perl-code. Looking through perlre it seems like you're right.
There is, but as MJD wrote: "it ain't pretty". Now, semantic checks or
assertions would
There is, but as MJD wrote: "it ain't pretty". Now, semantic checks or
assertions would be the only reason why I'd expect to be able to execute
perl code every time a part of a regex is succesfully parsed. Simply
look at RFC 197: a syntactic extension to regexes just to check if a
number is
In 005501c027eb$43bafe60$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Michael Maraist" writes:
:As you said, we shouldn't encourage full-fledged execution (since core dumps
:are common).
Let's not redefine the language just because there are bugs to fix.
Surely it is better to concentrate first on fixing the bugs so
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bart Lateur writes:
:On 25 Sep 2000 20:14:52 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
:
:Remove C?{ code }, C??{ code } and friends.
:
:I'm putting the finishing touches on an RFC to drop (?{...}) and replace
:it with something far more localized, hence cleaner: assertions, also in
Simon Cozens wrote:
Looks great on scalars, but...
@foo =~ shift; # @foo = $foo[0] ?
@foo =~ unshift; # @foo = $foo[-1] ?
Yes, if you wanted to do something that twisted. :-) It probably makes
more sense to do something like these:
@array =~ reverse;
@vals =~ sort { $a =
