Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mark-Jason Dominus writes:
> : It may turn out that the new notation really does have exactly the
> : same ambiguities, but that's not clear to me now. All I said was that
> : I would like to see some discussion of it.
>
> Operator vs term processing wou
"Stephen P. Potter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> m> whispered:
> | >The // tend to confuse people and make them expect tr to operate as a
> | >regular expression.
> |
> | So what? q/.../ is not a "regex function" eith
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
Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Richard Proctor wrote:
> > > Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
> > > regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
> > > is used within the regex itself and $1 is used o
Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 27 Sep 2000, Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> > > Do we *want* to maintain \1? Why have two notations to do the
> >
> > I'm kind of curious about what happens when you want to do, say:
> >
> >
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 08:57:39PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> > ${P1} means what $1 currently means (first match in last regex)
>
> I'm sorry that I don't have anything more constructive to say than
> "ick", but ... Ick.
I'm with the 'I
Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> Consolidate the $1 and C<\1> notations
I still say that this is a pointless change to scratch an itch that
only exists for woolly thinkers.
--
P
