This seems very complicated. Did you look at the Ram:6 recipe on
expressing AND, OR, and NOT in a regex? For example, to do
/FOO/ && /BAR/ you need not write /FOO.*BAR|BAR.*FOO/ -- and in
fact, should not, as it doesn't work properly on some pairs!
For example, /CAN/ && /ANAL/ can't be written
HI Tom,
Welcome to England (I presume)
> This seems very complicated. Did you look at the Ram:6 recipe on
> expressing AND, OR, and NOT in a regex? For example, to do
> /FOO/ && /BAR/ you need not write /FOO.*BAR|BAR.*FOO/ -- and in
> fact, should not, as it doesn't work properly on some pa
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Perl6 RFC Librarian writes:
:Given that expansion of regexes could include (+...) and (*...) I have
:been thinking about providing a general purpose way of adding
:functionality. Hence I propose that the entire (+...) syntax is
:kept free from formal specification for this
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]/, Perl6 RFC
> Librarian writes:
> :Given that expansion of regexes could include (+...) and (*...) I
> :have been thinking about providing a general purpose way of adding
> :functionality. Hence I propose that the entire (+...) syntax is
> :kept free from formal specifi
Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside of the regex. Is
there any reason not to standardize these down to one notation (i.e.,
eliminate
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 08:15:53AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
> Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
> regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
> is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside of the regex. Is
> there any r
Dave,
> Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
> regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
> is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside of the regex. Is
> there any reason not to standardize these down to one notation
From: "Dave Storrs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
> regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
> is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside of the regex. Is
> there any reason not to standa
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> If $1 could be made to work properly on the LHS of s///, I'd vote for
> that being The Way.
That was pretty much my thought?
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Richard Proctor wrote:
> > Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
> > regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
> > is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside of the regex. Is
> > there any reason n
> "DS" == Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens
DS> in a regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation
DS> is that \1 is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside
DS> of the regex. Is t
Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Richard Proctor wrote:
> > > Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
> > > regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
> > > is used within the regex itself and $1 is used o
> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jonathan> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 08:15:53AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
>> Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
>> regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
>> is u
On 27 Sep 2000, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Do we *want* to maintain \1? Why have two notations to do the
>
> I'm kind of curious about what happens when you want to do, say:
>
> if (m/(\S+)/) {
> $reg = qr{<(em|i|b)>($1)};
> }
>
> where the $1 in the regex quote is refering to $1
On Wed 27 Sep, Dave Storrs wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Richard Proctor wrote:
> > > Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
> > > regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that
> > > \1 is used within the regex itself and $1 is used ou
==
RFC 72: The regexp engine should go backward as well as
forward. (Peter Heslin)
Peter says (edited):
:If the regexp code is unlikely to be rewritten from the ground up,
then
:there may be little chance of this feature bein
==
> I lie: the other reason qr{} currently doesn't behave like that is
that
> when we interpolate a compiled regexp into a context that requires
it be
> recompiled,
Interpolated qr() items shouldn't be recompiled anyway. They s
17 matches
Mail list logo
