I never saw one comment on this, and the more I think about it, the more
I like it. So,
I thought I'd throw it back out one more time...(If I get no comments
this time, I'll
be quiet :)
David Corbin wrote:
>
> I haven't given this a WHOLE lot of thought, so please, shoot it full
> of holes.
>
> I certainly like the goal of this RFC, but I dislike the idea that the
> specification for
> what chacters are going to match are specified outside of the RE.
>
> I want to be able specify a character, set of characters or maybe even
> another RE, in the primary RE that specifies what an open
> "brace-athen-acket" looks like, and then a common symbol that is used to
> say "the matching brace-athen-acket".
>
> This is a quick guess at a syntax that I have no great attachment to
> (though I think it works). Consider this example:
>
> m/\m[{(].*\M/;
>
> the \m[{(] says I want to match on either open paren or open-brace.
> the \M indicates the matching close for whatever was found in the
> appropriate \m.
>
> Possible problems here are:
> - matching multiple character "opens" like "<<" or "/*".
> - knowing what the closing match should be (when it's not obvious) as
> in the above cases.
> - (possibly) a problem when you've got many /m-/M pairs in a single RE
>
> I've got some vague ideas on solving all of these, I'll go into if
> people like the basic concept enough.
> --
> David Corbin
> Mach Turtle Technologies, Inc.
> http://www.machturtle.com
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
David Corbin
Mach Turtle Technologies, Inc.
http://www.machturtle.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
