On 12/05/2002 12:18 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 02:11 AM, James Mastros wrote:
On 12/04/2002 3:21 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
\x and \o are then just shortcuts.
Can we please also have \0 as a shortcut for \0x0?
\0 in addition to \x, meaning the same thing? I
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:18:21AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
:
: On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 02:11 AM, James Mastros wrote:
:
: >On 12/04/2002 3:21 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
: >>\x and \o are then just shortcuts.
: >Can we please also have \0 as a shortcut for \0x0?
:
: \0 in addition to
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 02:11 AM, James Mastros wrote:
On 12/04/2002 3:21 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
\x and \o are then just shortcuts.
Can we please also have \0 as a shortcut for \0x0?
\0 in addition to \x, meaning the same thing? I think that would get
us back to where we were wit
On 12/04/2002 3:21 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:38:35AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: We still need to verify whether we can have, in qq strings:
:
:\033 - octal (p5; deprecated but allowed in p6?)
I think it's disallowed.
Thank the many gods ... or One True
Larry wrote:
: But I think we'd definitely like to introduce \d.
Can't, unless we change \d to in regexen.
Which we ought to be very wary of, given how very frequently it's
used in regexes.
Damian
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:38:35AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: We still need to verify whether we can have, in qq strings:
:
:\033 - octal (p5; deprecated but allowed in p6?)
I think it's disallowed.
:\o33 - octal (p5)
:\x1b - hex (p5)
:\d12
"Michael Lazzaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Note that \b conflicts with backspace. I'd rather keep backspace than
> binary, personally; I have yet to feel the need to call out a char in
> binary. :-) Or we can make it dependent on the trailing digits, or
> require the brackets, or require back
We still need to verify whether we can have, in qq strings:
\033 - octal (p5; deprecated but allowed in p6?)
\o33 - octal (p5)
\x1b - hex (p5)
\d123 - decimal (?)
\b1001- binary (?)
and if so, if these are allowed too:
\o{777}
It's o, not c.
Larry
> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 18:39:27 -0500
> From: James Mastros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Huh? In that case, somebody should tell Angel Faus; "Numeric literals,
> take 3" says 0c777, and nobody disented. IIRC, in fact, nobody's
> descented to 0c777 since it was first suggested.
Well, except Larry.
On 12/03/2002 2:27 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
I think we've been gravitating to a "language reference", geared
primarily towards intermediate/advanced users. Something much more
rigorous than beginners would be comfortable with (since it defines
things in much greater detail than beginners wou
11 matches
Mail list logo
