> header __SUB_CAP Subject:Capture /Your (\w+) Order/i $(__COMPANY)=\1
Would :capture play well with (e.g.) :addr, :name, :raw, etc?
It might as well be a tflag or something. Why limit capturing to headers
only?
I hadn't intended it to be limited to headers only, but I guess the syntax
woudl have to be a little different for raw, body, full, etc, since they
don't have a part keyword in the rule syntax.
Originally I hadn't wanted to have the ":Capture" part, just have the
capture assignment following the rule body. But then, how do you know if
there is a capture assignment at the end? I didn't like the idea of trying
to stick it into the match flags, especially for the (probably rare) case of
multiple captures in a single rule.
I suppose that the rule scanner probably is looking past the flags that may
follow a regex closing bracket, so would pick up an assignment if there was
one there. So, for instance, this should work:
body SOME_RULE /Your (\w+) Order/i $(__COMPANY)=\1
Alternately (which I don't much care for) we could have
body SOME_RULE /Your (\w+) Order for \$(\d+)/i
assign __COMPANY,__AMOUNT
or keyworded
assign 1=__COMPANY,2=__AMOUNT
What worries me about that sort of syntax is there is no real
juxtapositioning requirement between a rule name definition and any modifier
flag lines with the same rule name. The capture could be in a completely
different rule file, and I suppose could even be before the defining rule by
a thousand lines or so in a single file. But you pretty much need to see
both the regex and the assignments to know what is happening to what. So
allowing the assignments to be separated from the regex isn't necessarily
good.
Loren
