"Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Larry Wall:
> That's...odd. Is $$ (the variable) going away?
>
> # /./s /<any>/ or /<.>/ ???
>
> I think that . is too common a metacharacter to be relegated to
> this.
I think you failed to notice that '/s' on the regex. In general . will
still mean . but if you want it to match *anything* including a new
line, you have to call it <.>. Personally, I don't have a problem with
that.
> # space <sp> (or \h for "horizontal"?)
>
> Same thinking as '.'.
The golfers aren't going to like it for sure. But most of the time
when I'm doing production code I have /x turned on anyway, and in that
context, if I want to match a space and only a space, I have to do [ ]
anyway.
It might be nice if we could have m:X// mean 'space and hash match
themselves'.
> # \t also <tab>
> # \n also <lf> or <nl> (latter matching
> logical newline)
> # \r also <cr>
> # \f also <ff>
> # \a also <bell>
> # \e also <esc>
>
> I can tell you right now that these are going to screw people up.
> They'll try to use these in normal strings and be confused when it
> doesn't work. And you probably won't be able to emit a warning,
> considering how much CGI Perl munches.
But assigning meaning to < and > is going to do that anyway.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
