On 15 Dec 2000, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> >>>>> "Deven" == Deven T Corzine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Deven> As for special-case rules, I believe that my proposed modification would
> Deven> REMOVE a special-case semantic rule, at the cost of added complexity at the
> Deven> implementation level. (The cost decision of whether that added complexity
> Deven> is worthwhile is a separate consideration.)
>
> No, it would break a much higher overriding rule of "left most match
> wins". That's at the top of the chart. You're *adding* an exception
> to that. Tell me how you can do that without breaking much existing
> code.
Can you give a concrete, real-life example of code that my proposed change
would actually break, not a contrived hypothetical case design to break?
Adding the requirement for "\@" in double-quoted strings broke a LOT of
Perl 4 code. I doubt this would break much at all.
> Deven> And I'd really appreciate it if everyone would refrain from
> Deven> suggesting that I don't understand the behavior. I understand
> Deven> it fine; I just don't agree with it. In the language of the
> Deven> Supreme Court, "I respectfully dissent." Just because I don't
> Deven> perfectly agree with the semantics that were chosen doesn't
> Deven> mean I don't understand them.
>
> You don't understand the motivation, apparently. That's what I'm
> referencing.
I don't understand the motivation behind taking leftmost matching to such
extremes. I understand the importance of leftmost matching in general;
this is a particular situation where I believe it's being taken a little
too far for the good of the whole.
However, some of the comments that have been made seem to imply that I'm
simply ignorant about regular expressions and I need to learn them better.
My questioning the behavior arises out of philosophy, not ignorance.
Deven
