Re: RFC 331 (v1) Consolidate the $1 and C<\1> notations

2000-10-06 Thread Bennett Todd
I can see the motivation for wanting this, but there's a cost I haven't read anyone mentioning yet: this is abandoning backward compatibility with a regex notation that has remained pretty consistent in ed(1) and grep(1) and things inspired by them since I guess the early '70s, when they were born

Re: RFC 331 (v1) Consolidate the $1 and C<\1> notations

2000-09-30 Thread Dave Storrs
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Bart Lateur wrote: > I wrote this before, but apparently you didn't hear it. Let me repeat: You're right, I missed your email when I was incorporating things into the new version. Apologies. > $foo on the LHS allows metacharacter matching, for example "a.*b" can

Re: RFC 331 (v1) Consolidate the $1 and C<\1> notations

2000-09-30 Thread Bart Lateur
On 28 Sep 2000 20:57:39 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: >Currently, C<\1> and $1 have only slightly different meanings within a >regex. Let's consolidate them together, eliminate the differences, and >settle on $1 as the standard. I wrote this before, but apparently you didn't hear it. Let me

Re: RFC 331 (v1) Consolidate the $1 and C<\1> notations

2000-09-29 Thread Dave Storrs
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Hildo Biersma wrote: > > Currently, C<\1> and $1 have only slightly different meanings within a > > regex. Let's consolidate them together, eliminate the differences, and > > settle on $1 as the standard. > > Sigh. That would remove functionality from the language. > >

Re: RFC 331 (v1) Consolidate the $1 and C<\1> notations

2000-09-29 Thread Dave Storrs
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Hugo wrote: > :=item * > :/(foo)_C<\1>_bar/ > > Please don't do this: write C or /(foo)_\1_bar/, but > don't insert C<> in the middle: that makes it much more difficult to > read. Sorry; that was a global-replace error that I missed on proofreading. > :mean dif

Re: RFC 331 (v1) Consolidate the $1 and C<\1> notations

2000-09-29 Thread Hildo Biersma
> =head1 ABSTRACT > > Currently, C<\1> and $1 have only slightly different meanings within a > regex. Let's consolidate them together, eliminate the differences, and > settle on $1 as the standard. Sigh. That would remove functionality from the language. The reason why you need \1 in a regu

Re: RFC 331 (v1) Consolidate the $1 and C<\1> notations

2000-09-29 Thread Piers Cawley
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 08:57:39PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: > > ${P1} means what $1 currently means (first match in last regex) > > I'm sorry that I don't have anything more constructive to say than > "ick", but ... Ick. I'm with the 'I

Re: RFC 331 (v1) Consolidate the $1 and C<\1> notations

2000-09-28 Thread Nathan Wiger
> =item * > C<\1> goes away as a special form > > =item * > $1 means what C<\1> currently means (first match in this regex) > > =item * > ${1} is the same as $1 (first match in this regex) > > =item * > ${P1} means what $1 currently means (first match in last regex) Here's the big problem with

Re: RFC 331 (v1) Consolidate the $1 and C<\1> notations

2000-09-28 Thread Hugo
:=item * :/(foo)_$1_bar/ : :=item * :/(foo)_C<\1>_bar/ Please don't do this: write C or /(foo)_\1_bar/, but don't insert C<> in the middle: that makes it much more difficult to read. :mean different things: the second will match 'foo_foo_bar', while the :first will match 'foo[SOMETHING]bar' whe

Re: RFC 331 (v1) Consolidate the $1 and C<\1> notations

2000-09-28 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 08:57:39PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: > ${P1} means what $1 currently means (first match in last regex) I'm sorry that I don't have anything more constructive to say than "ick", but ... Ick. Well, maybe I do. Forget $P1. If the user wanted $1 from the previous R

RFC 331 (v1) Consolidate the $1 and C<\1> notations

2000-09-28 Thread Perl6 RFC Librarian
This and other RFCs are available on the web at http://dev.perl.org/rfc/ =head1 TITLE Consolidate the $1 and C<\1> notations =head1 VERSION Maintainer: David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 28 Sep 2000 Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Number: 331 Version: 1 Status: Developing =