> This is going to need a much better definition...
Yes, that was my point.
I snipped the following discussion, in which you argued against a
suggestion that I advanced only as an example of something that would
not work.
> (?^baz) should behave as (.*)(?{$1 !~ /baz/})
I don't think that's go
>I can tighten the definition up. If there have been calls for a
>(?^baz) type construct before, there will be again. It is a matter of
>getting the definition straightforward and useable.
Are you really just wanting !/BAD/ there? That is, something
that isn't matched by /BAD/? One would, o
On Tue 29 Aug, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>
> Richard Proctor's RFC166 says:
>
> > =head2 Matching Not a pattern
> >
> > (?^pattern) matches anything that does not match the pattern. On
> > its own, one can use !~ etc to negatively match patterns, but to
> > match a pattern that has foo(anythin
Richard Proctor's RFC166 says:
> =head2 Matching Not a pattern
>
> (?^pattern) matches anything that does not match the pattern. On
> its own, one can use !~ etc to negatively match patterns, but to
> match a pattern that has foo(anything but not baz)bar is currently
> difficult. With this sy
