On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:21:05PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Given that we're trying to get rid of special
> exceptions, and - in character classes is weird, and we already
> use .. for ranges everywhere else, and nobody is going to put a
> repeated character into a character class, I'm wondering if
>
> <-[a..z]>
>
> should be allowed/encouraged/required. It greatly improves the
> readability in my estimation.
So, <[a.z]> matches "a", ".", and "z",
while <[a..z]> matches characters "a" through "z" inclusive.
I think that works for me. I'll implement it that way (and yes, there
*are* updates to PGE coming very soon!).
I guess I can't complain too loudly about ".." over "-" for ranges
since I was the one who suggested replacing "," with ".." in quantifiers
(e.g., {1..3} instead of {1,3}). Not that I'd be complaining anyway. :-)
> The only problem with requiring .. is
> that people *will* write <[a-z]> out of habit, and we would probably
> have to outlaw the - form for many years before everyone would get
> used to the .. form. So maybe we allow - but warn if not backslashed.
Just to make sure I have it right, by "allow -" you mean that
<[a-z]> matches "a", "-", and "z" and produces a warning
about an unescaped '-'?
Pm
