On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 00:26, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:56:39PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 09:33:37AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > : Also, A05 proposes incorrect alternatives to the above
> > :
> > : /[:w[]foo bar]/
> > I would just like to point out that you are misreading those.
> I've been looking at patterns too long
You know, this is going to be a problem for a lot of people...
Think of this case:
/:w[foo bar|bar foo]/
I may be in the minority here, but I think we should try to avoid having
[] and () mean different things in different parts of a rule, especially
where one use is VERY common, and the other is obscure at best. I'd even
be ok with only allowing this inside our already highly magical <>:
/<:w>[foo bar|bar foo]/
and
/<:p(false)>/
and
/ <:p5['ponie']> (?{die;}) /
I checked, and while <::...> has a meaning in S05, <:...> does not, so
as long as we never allow a modifier called "::", this would work.
In fact, Larry, I think it's safe to say that <> is actually more
sought-after than that : everyone wants ;-)
--
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith
"It's the sound of a satellite saying, 'get me down!'" -Shriekback
