> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Hodges [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 1:30 PM > To: Larry Wall; perl6-language@perl.org > Subject: Re: should we change [^a-z] to <-[a..z]> instead of <-[a-z]>? > > > --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > . . . > > <-[a..z]> > > > > should be allowed/encouraged/required. It greatly improves the > > readability in my estimation. The only problem with requiring .. is > > that people *will* write <[a-z]> out of habit, and we would probably > > have to outlaw the - form for many years before everyone would get > > used to the .. form. So maybe we allow - but warn if not > > backslashed. > > In general, I think this is a great idea, but what exactly do you mean > by "warn if not backslashed"? That I'd get a warning *any* time I use a > dash in a character class? I guess I can live with that.
On the other hand, you can use the canonical perl 5 trick of having the dash be the first character in the class if you want to use a literal dash. Joe Gottman.
