> Again, it would be nice to be able to flag these to the compiler in a
> rule:
> rule thrice :count { <={.count < 4}> }
> / a? /
> Note that the C would cause the thrice count-rule to be matched
> non-greedily because the regex parser knows that it's a count, not a
> generic rule.
Going
On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 12:41, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > So, for example here are some translations of existing operators:
> >
> > + <={.count > 0}>
> > * <={1}>
> > *? <={1}>?
> > <8> <={.count == 8}># No optimization possible!
>
>
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> So, for example here are some translations of existing operators:
>
> + <={.count > 0}>
> * <={1}>
> *?<={1}>?
> <8> <={.count == 8}># No optimization possible!
Could it be done this way?:
@c:=(.)* <( @c == 8 )>
Surely ineffi
On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 00:22, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Then, why is there a C<+>? Why not make it C<|>?
>
> $foo = rx/ <||[cde]>|f /
This brings to mind a few big things that have been batting around in my
head about user-defined rules for a while now These things fall out
nicely from A5
