Tadziu Hoffmann <hoffm...@usm.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
|>>> cannot handle regular expressions or kinda glob-ing as
|>>> patterns?
|
|> would be really cool to have.
|
|Unfortunately, this also means inventing a new syntax.
|How should "\*", "\(", and "\[" be treated -- as groff
|escapes or as regular-expression magic?
Good question.
Ok i have no idea yet, but... i mean if the feature is worth it
(and regular expression support for comparisons _is_ definitely
worth it inn my opinion) then of course it can be implemented :-}
Looking into do_if_request()... well the token would need
a special preprocessing phase that ensure that roff remains what
roff is.. hmm, sounds hairy at first glance.
Well. Why not restricting this by saying that a new conditional
mode (don't nail me down onto it: .if @'LHS'RHS') is introduced
where RHS (or LHS) is _not_ subject to token processing, but
_only_ to regular expression matching, e.g.
.ds idea La terre est femme
.i[ef]re '\\*[idea]'^.*?terre.*' .tm cryptic cryptic tralla lalala
Anything speaking against such a construct?
--steffen
