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
> There is, but as MJD wrote: "it ain't pretty". Now, semantic checks or
> assertions would be the only reason why I'd expect to be able to execute
> perl code every time a part of a regex is succesfully parsed. Simply
> look at RFC 197: a syntactic extension to regexes just to check if a
> number
> On 25 Sep 2000 20:14:52 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>
> >Remove C, C and friends.
>
> I'm putting the finishing touches on an RFC to drop (?{...}) and replace
> it with something far more localized, hence cleaner: assertions, also in
> Perl code. That way,
>
> /(?
> would only match integ
From: "Simon Cozens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > A lot of what is trying to happen in (?{..}) and friends is parsing.
>
> That's not the problem that I'm trying to solve. The problem I'm trying
> to solve is interdependence. Parsing is neither here nor there.
Well, I recognize that your focus was no
From: "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> :Remove C, C and friends.
>
> Whoops, I missed this bit - what 'friends' do you mean?
Going by the topic, I would assume it involves (?(cond) true-exp |
false-exp).
There's also the $^R or what-ever it was that is the result of (?{ }).
Basically the code-like
> Ban Perl hooks into regexes
>
> =head1 ABSTRACT
>
> Remove C, C and friends.
>
At first, I thought you were crazy, then I read
>It would be preferable to keep the regular expression engine as
>self-contained as possible, if nothing else to enable it to be used
>either outside Perl or inside st
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Scott Duff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XML/HTML-specific ?< and ?> operators? (was Re: RFC 145
(alternate approach))
> How about qy() for Quote Yacc :-) This stuff is starting to look
> more and more like we're trying to fold lex and yacc int
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Proctor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: RFC 145 (alternate approach)
> On Tue 05 Sep, David Corbin wrote:
> > Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > > But, how about a new ?m operator?
> > >/(?m<<|[).*?(?M>>|])/;
> The
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Scott Duff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XML/HTML-specific ?< and ?> operators? (was Re: RFC 145
(alternate approach))
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 08:40:37AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > What if we added special XML/HTML-parsing ?< and ?> operato
> >Simple solution.
>
> >If you want to require formats such as m/.../ (which I actually think is
a
> >good idea), then make it part of -w, -W, -ww, or -WW, which would be a
perl6
> >enhancement of strictness.
>
> That's like having "use strict" enable mandatory perlstyle compliance
> checks, an
> If you want to change STUPID behaviour that should be avoided by current
> programs (such as empty regexes) fine.
Simple solution.
If you want to require formats such as m/.../ (which I actually think is a
good idea), then make it part of -w, -W, -ww, or -WW, which would be a perl6
enhancement
11 matches
Mail list logo
