David Corbin wrote:
> > I've got some vague ideas on solving all of these, I'll go into if
> > people like the basic concept enough.
not just in regexes, but in general, a way to extend the set of bratches
that Perl knows about would be very nice. for instance it is very difficult
for people us
Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
>"normal" "reversed"
>-- ---
>{__A1( )A1__}
That should be:
{__A1( )1A__}
Why you would delimit text this way I have no idea, but it could still
work...
-Nate
Richard Proctor wrote:
>
> No ?] should match the closest ?[ it should nest the ?[s bound by any
> brackets in the regex and act accordingly.
Good point.
> Also this does not work as a definition of simple bracket matching as you
> need ( to match ) not ( to match (. A ?[ list should specify
On Tue 05 Sep, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Eric Roode wrote:
> Now *that* sounds cool, I like it!
>
> What if the RFC only suggested the addition of two new constructs, (?[)
> and (?]), which did nested matches. The rest would be bound by standard
> regex constructs and your imagination!
>
> That is,
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:12:23PM -0400, Eric Roode wrote:
> Unfortunately, as Richard Proctor pointed out, ?m is taken. Perhaps
> (?[list|of|openers) and (?]list|of|closers) ?
That breaks the visual meaning of "|" as alternation if the RE engine
is to be smart enough to match the closers wi
Eric Roode wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, as Richard Proctor pointed out, ?m is taken. Perhaps
> (?[list|of|openers) and (?]list|of|closers) ?
>
> Does that look too bizarre, with the lone square bracket in each?
> Or does that serve to make it mnemonic (which is my intention)?
Actually, I persona
I think David's on to something good here. A major problem with
holding the bracket-matching possibilities in a special variable
(or a pair of them) is that one can't figure out what the RE is
going to do just by looking at it -- you have to look elsewhere.
Nathan Wiger wrote:
>I think it's cool
On Tue 05 Sep, David Corbin wrote:
> Nathan Wiger wrote:
> >
> > But, how about a new ?m operator?
> >
> >/(?m<<|[).*?(?M>>|])/;
> >
>
> Let's combine yor operator with my example from above where everything
> inside the (?m) or the ?(M)
> fits the syntax of a RE.
>
> /(?m(<<)|\[)
On Tue 05 Sep, David Corbin wrote:
> Nathan Wiger wrote:
> >
> > But, how about a new ?m operator?
> >
> >/(?m<<|[).*?(?M>>|])/;
> >
>
> Let's combine yor operator with my example from above where everything
> inside the (?m) or the ?(M)
> fits the syntax of a RE.
>
> /(?m(<<)|\[)
On Sat, 2 Sep 2000 15:16:20 -0400, Peter Heslin wrote:
>> This looks more natural to me:
>>
>> /(?`!G+A+T+)GA+C/
>Your version is closer to the way lookbehind works now, so this syntax
>might be thought to be clearer; I should add to the RFC an explicit
>note about this.
Look at your orig
Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> I think it's cool too, I don't like the @^g and ^@G either. But I worry
> about the double-meaning of the []'s in your solution, and the fact that
> these:
>
>/\m[...]...\M/;
>/\d[...]...\D/;
Well, it's not really a double meaning. It's a set of characters, just
From: Peter Heslin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 10:49 PM
> Simply put, I want variable-length lookbehind.
The RFC seems to say you want this so that you can optimize the operation of
the regex execution. I've been looking at the existing fixed-length
look-behind and see t
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 12:52:23PM -0400, Joe McMahon wrote:
>
> /($pat1)($pat2)($pat3)(?{sub1(@\)$pat4|?{sub2(@\)}$pat5|?{sub3(@\)})/
>
> This would translate to "if pat1pat2pat3 matches, call sub1 with all the
> matches to that point if pat4 matches afterward, otherwise call s
I think it's cool too, I don't like the @^g and ^@G either. But I worry
about the double-meaning of the []'s in your solution, and the fact that
these:
/\m[...]...\M/;
/\d[...]...\D/;
Will work so differently. Maybe another character like ()'s that takes a
list:
/\m(<<,[).*?\M(>>,])/;
I never saw one comment on this, and the more I think about it, the more
I like it. So,
I thought I'd throw it back out one more time...(If I get no comments
this time, I'll
be quiet :)
David Corbin wrote:
>
> I haven't given this a WHOLE lot of thought, so please, shoot it full
> of holes.
>
>
15 matches
Mail list logo
