On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 10:01:44PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-16 11:08 (-0700):
: > : $foo ~~ /@{< [ ] { } < > : ++ $ . ? / +| +& ?| ?& >}/
: > Not unless you backwhack that internal > there.
: > [...]
: > @myfavoritepunctuations = < [ ] { } < \> : ++ $ . ? / +| +& ?| ?& >
Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-16 11:08 (-0700):
> : $foo ~~ /@{< [ ] { } < > : ++ $ . ? / +| +& ?| ?& >}/
> Not unless you backwhack that internal > there.
> [...]
> @myfavoritepunctuations = < [ ] { } < \> : ++ $ . ? / +| +& ?| ?& >;
Why isn't nesting allowed there? I'd expect it to work a bit l
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 02:42:25AM -0700, Ashley Winters wrote:
: I never liked character sets. They introduced yet another exception to
: the parsing rules, and it irked me. If it weren't for the need to
: optimize character sets, I'd prefer to be Pythonized into using @{'a'
: .. 'z'}
:
: If I re
> I never liked character sets. They introduced yet another exception to
> the parsing rules, and it irked me. If it weren't for the need to
> optimize character sets, I'd prefer to be Pythonized into using @{'a'
> .. 'z'}
Isn't that just a digression into the bad old pre-internationalized
days. U
On 4/15/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am I the only one who thinks <[a-z]> is ugly and hard to type because of
> the nested brackets? The same goes for <{...}>. The latter can't easily
> be fixed, I think, but the former perhaps can. If there are more who
&
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 02:58:44PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> Am I the only one who thinks <[a-z]> is ugly and hard to type because of
> the nested brackets? The same goes for <{...}>. The latter can't easily
> be fixed, I think, but the former perhaps can.
Part of the th
Am I the only one who thinks <[a-z]> is ugly and hard to type because of
the nested brackets? The same goes for <{...}>. The latter can't easily
be fixed, I think, but the former perhaps can. If there are more who
think it needs to, that is. And <{}> is a bit easier to ty
