Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:44:03PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Is there a ?ws-like thingy that is always \s+?
Not currently, since \s+ is there. ?ws used to be that, but
currently is defined as the magical whitespace matcher used by :words.
: Do \s and ?ws match
On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 17:44, Juerd wrote:
Is there a ?ws-like thingy that is always \s+?
Not sure what that means exactly.
Do \s and ?ws match non-breaking whitespace, U+00A0?
As I understood, Perl 6 was going to use the Unicode standard(s) to
determine the whitespacishness of each codepoint.
Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-04-15 18:20 (-0400):
Is there a ?ws-like thingy that is always \s+?
Not sure what that means exactly.
?ws is \s* or \s+, depending on its surroundings.
Thankfully, NBSP (U+00A0) is not Unicode whitespace.
Thanks for sharing this information!
Juerd
--
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:44:03PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Is there a ?ws-like thingy that is always \s+?
Not currently, since \s+ is there. ?ws used to be that, but
currently is defined as the magical whitespace matcher used by :words.
: Do \s and ?ws match non-breaking whitespace, U+00A0?
Yes.
Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-15 15:38 (-0700):
: Do \s and ?ws match non-breaking whitespace, U+00A0?
Yes.
That makes \s+ and \s*, and thus ?ws very useless for anything but
trimming whitespace. For splitting (including word wrapping), it'd do
exactly the wrong thing.
: \s is said (in S05) to
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:46:47AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-15 15:38 (-0700):
: : Do \s and ?ws match non-breaking whitespace, U+00A0?
: Yes.
:
: That makes \s+ and \s*, and thus ?ws very useless for anything but
: trimming whitespace. For splitting (including word
I thought we had just established that nbsp is not in Unicode¹s definition
of whitespace. So why should \s match it?
On 2005-04-15 18:56, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:46:47AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-15 15:38 (-0700):
: : Do \s and
