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(,])/;
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
like
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 for
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 using
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()|\[).*?(?M()|(\]))
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
