Larry Wall:
# Me writes:
# : > Very nice (but, I assume you meant {$foo data})!
# :
# : I didn't mean that (even if I should have).
# :
# : Aiui, Mike's final suggestion was that parens end up
# : doing all the (ops data) tricks, and braces are used
# : purely to do code insertions. (I really li
> (?=...)
> (?!...)
> (?<=...)
> (?
> (?>...)
Yummy :)
I'd say this is about perfect. The look(ahead|behind)s, er,
look<:ahead|behind>s are used seldom enough that this is practical. And
it's I much clea[nr]er than that (?=...) crap
Me writes:
: > Very nice (but, I assume you meant {$foo data})!
:
: I didn't mean that (even if I should have).
:
: Aiui, Mike's final suggestion was that parens end up
: doing all the (ops data) tricks, and braces are used
: purely to do code insertions. (I really liked that idea.)
:
: So:
:
Aaron Sherman writes:
: On Sun, 2002-04-21 at 10:59, Trey Harris wrote:
:
: > 0 has true
: >
: > my first reaction would be, "huh? Since when?"
:
: Dare I say... "now"? ;-)
:
: Sorry, someone had to say it.
:
: Personally, even though it sucks up namespace, I think what we're seeing
: here i
On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 14:18, Me wrote:
> > Very nice (but, I assume you meant {$foo data})!
>
> I didn't mean that (even if I should have).
>
> Aiui, Mike's final suggestion was that parens end up
> doing all the (ops data) tricks, and braces are used
> purely to do code insertions. (I really li
> Very nice (but, I assume you meant {$foo data})!
I didn't mean that (even if I should have).
Aiui, Mike's final suggestion was that parens end up
doing all the (ops data) tricks, and braces are used
purely to do code insertions. (I really liked that idea.)
So:
Perl 5Perl6
(data)
On Sat, 2002-04-20 at 14:33, Me wrote:
> [2c. What about ( data) or (ops data) normally means non-capturing,
> ($2 data) captures into $2, ($foo data) captures into $foo?]
Very nice (but, I assume you meant {$foo data})! This does add another
special case to the regexp parser's handling of "$",
On Sat, 2002-04-20 at 05:06, Mike Lambert wrote:
> > He then went on to describe something I didn't understand at all.
> > Sorry.
>
> Few corrections to what you wrote:
>
> To avoid the problem of extending {} to support new features with a
> character 'x', without breaking stuff that might have
On Sun, 2002-04-21 at 10:59, Trey Harris wrote:
> 0 has true
>
> my first reaction would be, "huh? Since when?"
Dare I say... "now"? ;-)
Sorry, someone had to say it.
Personally, even though it sucks up namespace, I think what we're seeing
here is a need for more than one keyword that are s
