On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 03:00:09PM -0400, Kurt Hutchinson wrote:
> Repitition is a kind of assertion, after all, and it seems like it
> should get to play in the same angle-bracket sandbox as the other
> assertions.
Once I got to thinking about **{}, the less and less it looked like an
assertion t
Kurt Hutchinson writes:
> For specifying in-rule repetitions, why not use the rule modifer we
> already have for specifying whole-rule repetitions; namely, C<:x>. Allow
> :x inside rules like :i and :w, and we get something like this:
> rx :w/ three m's\: [:3xm] /
> rx :w/ t
Dan Hursh writes:
> Second, if it is a problem that '?' is too far away, how about this?
>
> [foo]**{5..3} # greedy
> [foo]**{3..5} # lazy
Because 5..3 is the empty list. This wasn't a mistake in Perl 5, so
it's staying in Perl 6.
> Oh, is there a way to trick this closure syntax into being
Please forgive me if these ideas have been discussed before. I don't
remember having read them elsewhere.
For specifying in-rule repetitions, why not use the rule modifer we
already have for specifying whole-rule repetitions; namely, C<:x>. Allow
:x inside rules like :i and :w, and we get somethin
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
- for minimal matching the ? is too far away from the operator that it
applies to. It looks like it's doing something to the closure (and
maybe it is) Should that be [foo]**?{$m..$n} instead?
- Bringing a closure into the picture seems to put too much power in
such
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 05:15:58PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2004-09-17 9:57 (-0500):
: > [foo]~5 # match exactly 5 times
: > [foo]~{0...}# verbose [foo]*
: > [foo]~{1...}# verbose [foo]+
: > [foo]~{1..5}#
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 09:57:14AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: Now for the bothersome parts and some questions and some suggestions in
: no particular order:
:
: - for minimal matching the ? is too far away from the operator that it
: applies to. It looks like it's doing something to the
Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2004-09-17 9:57 (-0500):
> [foo]~5 # match exactly 5 times
> [foo]~{0...}# verbose [foo]*
> [foo]~{1...}# verbose [foo]+
> [foo]~{1..5}# match from 1 to 5 times
> [foo]~{[1,3,5]} #
The new range quantifier syntax has been bothering me. For reference,
here's the bit of S5 that talks about it:
> The repetition specifier is now **{...} for maximal matching, with a
> corresponding or **{...}? for minimal matching. Space is allowed on
> either side of the asterisks. The curlies
