Eric Roode wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, as Richard Proctor pointed out, ?m is taken. Perhaps
> (?[list|of|openers) and (?]list|of|closers) ?
>
> Does that look too bizarre, with the lone square bracket in each?
> Or does that serve to make it mnemonic (which is my intention)?
Actually, I personally like this, and was on the verge of suggesting
similar myself, believe it or not. It makes a lot of sense to me. I
don't like the m vs M because that smacks too much of negation for my
tastes.
> And --- can-of-worms time --- we're only intending the list elements
> to be constant characters, but that syntax *looks* like it can take a
> regular expression for any of the list elements
Now *that* sounds cool, I like it!
What if the RFC only suggested the addition of two new constructs, (?[)
and (?]), which did nested matches. The rest would be bound by standard
regex constructs and your imagination!
/(?[\d+)[\s\w]+?(?])/
Would match
01HelloThere10
999 Important Mesage 999
But not
01HelloThere01
999 Important Message 9
That is, the ?] simply takes whatever the closest ?[ matched and
reverses it, verbatim, including ordering, case, and number of
characters. The only trick would be a way to get what "reverses it"
means correct.
> Sound about right?
I think I'm really starting to like this now... :-)
-Nate
