This RFC had three concepts, I propose dropping the "Not a pattern" from here
as it is now in RFC 198 and the null element. The List expansion might
benefit from a slight enhancement.
Hugo:
> (?@foo) and (?Q@foo) are both things I've wanted before now. I'm
> not sure if this is the right syntax, particularly if RFC 112 is
> adopted: it would be confusing to have (?@foo) to have so
> different a meaning from (?$foo=...), and even more so if the
> latter is ever extended to allow (?@foo=...).
> I see no reason that implementation should cause any problems
> since this is purely a regexp-compile time issue.
>
> I dont have any problem with the (?@foo) syntax, does anybody else?
> I cant imagine a (?@foo=...) style syntax (yet).
Thinking further about what I defined for (?Q@foo) as adding the list
as quoted alternatives, is there a case for (?Q$foo) to match the contents of
$foo quoted in a similar way? (I think it is at least a probably).
Feedback desirable.
Richard
(Still thinking on scoping in assignment and boolean regexes)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
