On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Tyler Curtis wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > While that's a nifty special case (I'm sure it will surprise me someday,
> and
> > I'll spend a half hour debugging before I remember this mail), it doesn't
> > help in the general cas
David Green wrote:
On 2010-08-05, at 8:27 am, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Carl Mäsak wrote:
I see this particular thinko a lot, though. Maybe some Perl 6 lint tool
or another will detect when you have a regex containing ^ at its start, $
at the end, | somewhere in the
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> While that's a nifty special case (I'm sure it will surprise me someday, and
> I'll spend a half hour debugging before I remember this mail), it doesn't
> help in the general case (see my example grammar, below).
In the general case, no. In
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 10:27:50AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Carl Mäsak wrote:
> > > I see this particular thinko a lot, though. Maybe some Perl 6 lint
> > > tool or another will detect when you hav
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 10:27:50AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Carl Mäsak wrote:
> > I see this particular thinko a lot, though. Maybe some Perl 6 lint
> > tool or another will detect when you have a regex containing ^ at its
> > start, $ at the end, | somewhere i
On 2010-08-05, at 8:27 am, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Carl Mäsak wrote:
>>
>> I see this particular thinko a lot, though. Maybe some Perl 6 lint tool or
>> another will detect when you have a regex containing ^ at its start, $ at
>> the end, | somewhere in the middle
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> You know, this problem would go away, almost entirely, if we had a :f[ull]
> adverb for regex matching that imposed ^[...]$ around the entire match. Then
> your code becomes:
>
> m:f/<[A..Z]>+|<[a..z]>+/
>
> for grins, :f[ull]l[ine] could use ^^ and $$.
>
> I suspect :full w
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Carl Mäsak wrote:
> Darren (), Carl (>>>), Darren (>>), Patrick (>):
>
> > In this case yes -- the original pattern without the square brackets
> > would act like:
> >
> >/ [^ <[A..Z]>+] | [<[a..z]>+ $] /
> >
> > In other words, the original pattern says "s
Darren (), Carl (>>>), Darren (>>), Patrick (>):
>> >>Read what I said again. I was proposing that the namespace comprised of
>> >>names matching a pattern like this:
>> >>
>> >> /^ <[A..Z]>+ | <[a..z]>+ $/
>> >
>> >/^ [<[A..Z]>+ | <[a..z]>+] $/
>>
>> Are the square brackets necessary when the
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 12:29:38AM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Carl Mäsak wrote:
> >Darren (>):
> >>Read what I said again. I was proposing that the namespace comprised of
> >>names matching a pattern like this:
> >>
> >> /^ <[A..Z]>+ | <[a..z]>+ $/
> >
> >/^ [<[A..Z]>+ | <[a..z]>+] $/
>
> Are
Darren Duncan wrote:
For another thing, assuming in the typical case that any time a language
evolves, it still provides the means to accomplish anything it was
previously capable of, then each implementation needs no
backwards-compatibility internally, but just the state of the art.
Backward
Damian Conway wrote:
Darren suggested:
Use namespaces.
The upper/lower/mixed approach *is* a
namespace approach.
Yes it is. But I thought that prefix-namespaces would scale better. Especially
if the documentation system got complicated enough to involve modules, possibly
those by differ
Carl Mäsak wrote:
Darren (>):
Read what I said again. I was proposing that the namespace comprised of
names matching a pattern like this:
/^ <[A..Z]>+ | <[a..z]>+ $/
/^ [<[A..Z]>+ | <[a..z]>+] $/
Are the square brackets necessary when the pattern doesn't contain anything
other than the a
Darren (>):
> Read what I said again. I was proposing that the namespace comprised of
> names matching a pattern like this:
>
> /^ <[A..Z]>+ | <[a..z]>+ $/
/^ [<[A..Z]>+ | <[a..z]>+] $/
// Carl
14 matches
Mail list logo
