Author: larry
Date: Wed Apr 26 14:41:21 2006
New Revision: 8967
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Typos, clarifications.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc/tru
Author: autrijus
Date: Wed Apr 26 10:07:38 2006
New Revision: 8962
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
* S02: bump version from the unicode change; also merge in
azuroth++'s typo fix, as well as paragraph reflow.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
Author: autrijus
Date: Wed Apr 26 10:05:19 2006
New Revision: 8961
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
* Further note that Ps/Pe dominates BidiMirroring, so U+298D
maps to U+298E, and U+298E itself does not open brackets.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
Author: autrijus
Date: Wed Apr 26 09:45:43 2006
New Revision: 8958
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
* U+201A and U+201E also have to go.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S0
Author: autrijus
Date: Wed Apr 26 09:36:05 2006
New Revision: 8957
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
* S02: Explicitly define how Ps/Pe and BidiMirroring
characters match, and resolve the one-to-many
open/closing mapping by preferring the lower
codepoint.
Modifi
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:36:50AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Possibly we should make the syntax be a smart match, but only require that
: conformat implementations implement ranges and integers.
That is essentially the intent of the current spec, and why we defined
**{} to run a closure.
Author: autrijus
Date: Wed Apr 26 07:12:51 2006
New Revision: 8953
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
* S03: particle++ noted the omission of prefix unary
= and -e -w -x etc from the operator table.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
===
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 09:57:58PM -0400, Joe Gottman wrote:
> According to Synopsis 5, the repetition qualifier is now **{.} where the .
> must correspond to either an Int or a Range. This seems rather restrictive.
> Why are we not allowed a junction of Ints, for instance
>
> m/^ a*
On 4/26/06, Joe Gottman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to Synopsis 5, the repetition qualifier is now **{.} where the .
> must correspond to either an Int or a Range. This seems rather restrictive.
> Why are we not allowed a junction of Ints, for instance
S05 also says:
It is illegal to
