On Wednesday 13 June 2001 12:23 am, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > RE Feature Override Create New
> > ----------------------------------------
> > switches 'i' only yes
> > anchors no no
>
> (I would call them assertions.) Bzzt.
>
Another gig for Bean.
> > - Anchors. ^,$,\A,\Z,\z,\b, \G. Since the definition of a line (see
> > 'm' and 's' above) isn't changing, the line oriented assertions don't
> > need
>
> Are you certain about that?
Of course I'm not certain about that. But I had made that assumption, so I
had to stick with it, lest I be beat with the inconsistency stick.
>
> > adjusting. String anchors are straightforward, as is \G. \b *could* be
> > locale-defined independent of \w\W or \W\w, but I think it'd be better
> > to stick with that definition, and allow the locale to override \w,
> > instead. I think adding new anchor positions may be more difficult that
> > any gains gained.
>
> Whoa. Or at least allow for some new user-definable assertions.
> In many Asian scripts concepts like \b definitely aren't as simple as
> in Western scripts. E.g. in Thai \b cannot be defined as ^ \w\W \W\w
> $, it must be algorithmically defined. (No, I'm not an expert in Thai,
> don't ask me for details.) In Chinese a \b would match practically
> between every pairs of characters, right (since every character is a
> \w, kinda...)?
Okay. I was on the fence, just fell off on the wrong side.
I also missed... literals. We can't create new literals, (can we?) but can
we override them? Would it make sense to do so? (I can only think of
transliteration of languages that are 1-1 across the character sets.)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
