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]
Number: 308
Version: 1
Status: Developing
=head1
Ban Perl hooks into regexes
=head1 ABSTRACT
Remove C?{ code }, C??{ code } and friends.
At first, I thought you were crazy, then I read
It would be preferable to keep the regular expression engine as
self-contained as possible, if nothing else to enable it to be used
either outside Perl
I think the proposal that Joe McMahon and I are finishing up now will
make these obsolete anyway.
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Perl6 RFC Librarian writes:
:It would be preferable to keep the regular expression engine as
:self-contained as possible, if nothing else to enable it to be used
:either outside Perl or inside standalone translated Perl programs
:without a Perl runtime.
:
:To do this, we'll
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Perl6 RFC Librarian writes:
:=head1 ABSTRACT
:
:Remove C?{ code }, C??{ code } and friends.
Whoops, I missed this bit - what 'friends' do you mean?
Hugo
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 11:31:08PM +0100, Hugo wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Perl6 RFC Librarian writes:
:=head1 ABSTRACT
:
:Remove C?{ code }, C??{ code } and friends.
Whoops, I missed this bit - what 'friends' do you mean?
Whatever even more bizarre extensions people will have suggested
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 08:56:47PM +, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
I think the proposal that Joe McMahon and I are finishing up now will
make these obsolete anyway.
Good! The less I have to maintain the better...
--
Keep the number of passes in a compiler to a minimum.
-- D.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 04:55:18PM -0400, Michael Maraist wrote:
A lot of what is trying to happen in (?{..}) and friends is parsing.
That's not the problem that I'm trying to solve. The problem I'm trying
to solve is interdependence. Parsing is neither here nor there.
--
Intel engineering
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 08:56:47PM +, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
I think the proposal that Joe McMahon and I are finishing up now will
make these obsolete anyway.
Good! The less I have to maintain the better...
Sorry, I meant that it would make (??...) and (?{...}) obsolete, not
that
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Access to optimisation information for regular expressions
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Hugo van der Sanden ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Date: 25 September 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 317
Wouldn't this interact rather badly with the /gc option (which also leaves
Cpos set on failure)?
This question arose because I was trying to work out how one would write a
lexer with the new /z option, and it made my head ache ;-)
As you can see from the example code, the program flow
From: "Hugo" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:Remove C?{ code }, C??{ code } and friends.
Whoops, I missed this bit - what 'friends' do you mean?
Going by the topic, I would assume it involves (?(cond) true-exp |
false-exp).
There's also the $^R or what-ever it was that is the result of (?{ }).
From: "Simon Cozens" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A lot of what is trying to happen in (?{..}) and friends is parsing.
That's not the problem that I'm trying to solve. The problem I'm trying
to solve is interdependence. Parsing is neither here nor there.
Well, I recognize that your focus was not on
13 matches
Mail list logo
