I'd suggest also, that (?[) (with no specified brackets) have the
default meaning
of the "four standard brackets" :
(?['('=>')','{'=>'}','['=>']','<'=>'>')
Note also the subtle syntax change. We are either dealing with strings
or with patterns. The consensus seems to be against patterns (I can
understand that). Given that, we need to quote the right hand side of
the => operator I think. The quotes on the left side would be optional,
I think.
Richard Proctor wrote:
>
> On Tue 05 Sep, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > Eric Roode wrote:
> > 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!
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> No ?] should match the closest ?[ it should nest the ?[s bound by any
> brackets in the regex and act accordingly.
>
> Also this does not work as a definition of simple bracket matching as you
> need ( to match ) not ( to match (. A ?[ list should specify for each
> element what the matching element is perhaps
>
> (?[( => ),{ => }, 01 => 10)
>
> sort of hashish in style.
>
> Perhaps the brackets could be defined as a hash allowing (?[%Hash)
>
> Richard
>
> --
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
David Corbin
Mach Turtle Technologies, Inc.
http://www.machturtle.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
