On 4/15/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks [a-z] is ugly and hard to type because of
the nested brackets? The same goes for {...}. The latter can't easily
be fixed, I think, but the former perhaps can. If there are more who
think it needs
I never liked character sets. They introduced yet another exception to
the parsing rules, and it irked me. If it weren't for the need to
optimize character sets, I'd prefer to be Pythonized into using @{'a'
.. 'z'}
Isn't that just a digression into the bad old pre-internationalized
days.
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 02:42:25AM -0700, Ashley Winters wrote:
: I never liked character sets. They introduced yet another exception to
: the parsing rules, and it irked me. If it weren't for the need to
: optimize character sets, I'd prefer to be Pythonized into using @{'a'
: .. 'z'}
:
: If I
Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-16 11:08 (-0700):
: $foo ~~ /@{ [ ] { } : ++ $ . ? / +| + ?| ? }/
Not unless you backwhack that internal there.
[...]
@myfavoritepunctuations = [ ] { } \ : ++ $ . ? / +| + ?| ? ;
Why isn't nesting allowed there? I'd expect it to work a bit like q
foo bar
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 10:01:44PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-16 11:08 (-0700):
: : $foo ~~ /@{ [ ] { } : ++ $ . ? / +| + ?| ? }/
: Not unless you backwhack that internal there.
: [...]
: @myfavoritepunctuations = [ ] { } \ : ++ $ . ? / +| + ?| ? ;
:
: Why isn't
Am I the only one who thinks [a-z] is ugly and hard to type because of
the nested brackets? The same goes for {...}. The latter can't easily
be fixed, I think, but the former perhaps can. If there are more who
think it needs to, that is. And {} is a bit easier to type because all
four are shifted
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 02:58:44PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks [a-z] is ugly and hard to type because of
the nested brackets? The same goes for {...}. The latter can't easily
be fixed, I think, but the former perhaps can.
Part of the thinking behind
