> -----Original Message-----
> From: Damian Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Since paren's aren't required with keywords, can they still serve as rex
> > delimiters?
>
> No. For other syntactic reasons parens aren't allowed as rule
> delimiters at all. And only /.../ delimit "raw" matches. Every other
delimiter
> requires an explicit 'm'.
I keep forgetting poor C<m>.
> > Sadly, it doesn't generalize well:
> >
> > if (specific() :: && detail1() :: && detail2()) || general() {...}
> >
> > becoming
> >
> > if (specific() ? detail1() ? detail2() : FALSE : general() ) {...}
> >
> > to say nothing of readability.
>
> Your proposed version is hardly a model of readability either. ;-)
Hmm. You'll want to take that up with the folks responsible for the rex
syntax. :-O
> Besides, the correct solution there is just:
>
> if (specific() ?? detail1() && detail2() :: general()) {...}
For some value of "correct" I suppose. Using ??:: within an if/else context
makes my skin crawl, stylistically. :-(
=Austin
