On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:05:55PM -0600, Paul Seamons wrote: : > Other available chars: : > : > <`ws> : > <^ws> : > <&ws> : > <*ws> : > <-ws>
I forgot we're using - already, so scratch that one... : > <|ws> : > <:ws> : > <;ws> : > </ws> : : I'd vote for <:ws> which is vaguely reminiscent of the former non-capturing : parens (?:). I'm not sure a resemblance to P5 syntax is really a recommendation... :) : It (<:ws>) also bears little similarity to any other regex construct - : although it looks a bit like a Perl 6 pair. Which might be a good argument for reserving the syntax for real pairs somehow. Also, pairs have special arguments, and people would wonder what <:foo(...)> <:foo[...]>, <:foo{...}> and <:foo<...>> mean. Not to mention <:!foo>. I should have pointed out that I think all the candidates from the last list are long shots for various reasons. </ws> looks like a closing tag. <*ws> is visually confusing with other * usages, and while <^ws> implies some kind of negation culturally, it's a form of negation we're trying to get away from, in favor of consistently using !. The first list is the ones I'm really considering, and of those, <.ws> is the easiest to type and gets out of the way of identifier visually. It also looks like a method call, which in fact it is. <~ws> is hard to type, and <\ws> can be confused with \w. The problem with <=foo> I already mentioned. The only strangeness about <.foo> I see is that arguments would presumably continue to parse like like ordinary assertions: <.foo bar> and <.foo: bar> might be misread. I dunno, maybe <\ws> isn't so bad... Larry