Larry Wall: > Juerd: >> Ruud: >>> Maybe >>> "\x{123a 123b 123c}" >>> is a nice alternative of >>> "\x{123a} \x{123b} \x{123c}". >> >> Hmm, very cute and friendly! Can we keep it, please? Please?
Thanks for the support. > We already have, from A5, \x[0a;0d], so you can supposedly say > "\x[123a;123b;123c]" <rereading apo5 /> Found it in the old/new table on page 7. For me the semicolon is fine. I am using character names more and more, and between those, semicolons are less cluttery. Character names can contain spaces, but semicolons too? If not then \c[BEL; EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT ZERO] would be possible, but maybe better not, or more like \c['BEL'; 'EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT ZERO'] or even \c('BEL', 'EXTENDED ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT ZERO'). Something else: The '^' could be used for both the ultimate start- and end-of-string. This frees the '$'. There is still the '$$' that matches before embedded newlines, and since '^^' matches after those newlines, the '^^' and '$$' can only be unified to '^^' if it is one-width inside a string, so is like '[$$\n^^]' (or just '\n') there. At start- and end-of-string the '^^' can still be a zero-width match. I am not sure about greedy (meaning to try one-width first) or non-greedy. Example: '^[(\N*)^^]*^' to capture all lines, clean of newlines. Not a lot clearer than '^[(\N*)\n*]*$', but freeing the '$' and '$$' might be worth it. <mess about '^^+', '^+^' and '^*^' (bats!) removed> -- Affijn, Ruud "Gewoon is een tijger."