On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 08:32:18AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: : > The synopsis says: : > : > * If a subrule appears two (or more) times in the same lexical scope : > (i.e. twice within the same subpattern and alternation), or if the : > subrule is quantified anywhere within the entire rule, then its : > corresponding hash entry is always assigned a reference to an array : > of Match objects, rather than a single Match object. : > : > Maybe you're not the right person to ask, but is there a particular : > reason for the "entire rule" bit? : > : > / (<foo>|None) <foo> (<foo>) / : > : > Here we get three Matches $0<foo> (possibly undefined), $<foo>, and : > $1<foo>. At least, I think so. : > : > / (<foo>?) <foo> (<foo>) / : > : > Now, we suddenly get three more or less unrelated arrays with lengths : > 1..1, 1, and 1. Of course, I admit this example is a bit artificial. : : Oh, I hadn't caught that particular clause (or hadn't read it as : you just did). PGE certainly doesn't implement things that way. : I think the "entire rule" clause was intended to cover cases like : : / [ <foo> ]* / : : where <foo> is indirectly quantified and therefore is an array of : match objects. We should probably reword it, or get a clarification : of what is intended. (Damian, @Larry: can you confirm or clarify : this for us?)
I believe that was the intent, but I'll defer to Damian on the wordsmithing because I'm a bit out of sorts at the moment and it'd probably come out all sideways. Larry
