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.
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
Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2006-04-25 23:35 (-0500):
> I get your point though. There's no easy way to say "match 1, 7, 12, or
> 19" with this particular syntax.
> How often does that come up in practice though? I don't think I've
> ever wanted something like that.
Quite often. A silly exampl
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*
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**{1|3|5} $/ ; # Match 1,3, or 5 a's.
This does not seem noticeably
