Larry wrote: > But the language in the following lexical scope is a constant, so what can > :syntax($foo) possibly mean? [Wait, this is Damian I'm talking to.] > Nevermind, don't answer that...
Too late! ;-) Regex syntaxes already are a twisty maze of variations, mostly alike. I can easily envisage Perl users occasionally needing/wanting/using patterns which are any of: :syntax<POSIX> :syntax<grep> :syntax<egrep> :syntax<vim> :syntax<Snobol> :syntax<Google> Not just because people are used to different syntaxes, but also because programs will want to accept search patterns in different (generally: more restrictive) syntaxes so as to be able to interpolate them safely: use Regex::Google; for =<> :prompt<Find:> -> $search { for @texts { say if m:syntax<Google>/$search/; } } > And there aren't that many regexish languages anyway. That depends on how broadly you define regexish. Search is a *very* common activity and people are (re-)inventing notations for it all the time. Damian