Re: Suggestion for Enhancement; B, H, ... and D

"David W. Tamkin" <dattier(_at_)ripco(_dot_)com> writes:
> Philip wrote,
>
> | It doesn't need to so obviously paired; you just need some way to turn
> | it both on and off.
>
> Your recommendations, all the same, were two markers that are obviously
> paired.  Obvious pairing may not be a necessity, but it wouldn't hurt.
I was think of the \{ + \} idea when I wrote that, where there a clear
matching of start to finish with the possible resulting confusion when
a \{ doesn't have a matching \}, or when their grouping doesn't nest
properly relative to parens.  The \D and \d tokens would have their own
pending confusion given the trend in regexp engines to use \d to mean
[0-9] and \D to mean [^0-9]

...
> Having no experience with perl -- I glanced at it years ago and just threw
> up my hands, as too much was predicated on being familiar with C's syntax --
> I had never heard of that.  Looks good to me.  It also, unlike anything
> involving a backslash, doesn't need protection at the beginning of the
> regexp.  It would need some modifying because insensitivity is the default
> [such as (?s) or (?c) to turn sensitivity on and then (?-s) or (?-c)
> respectively to turn it off, unless those specific markers are already in
> use in perl to mean something else], but that's all.
(?s) tells perl to let . match newlines.  (?c) doesn't currently have a
meaning, but it's only a matter of time before they come assign it one.
If I was to ever put such an extension into procmail, I would tend to
leave it as (?i) and (?-i).  If you wanted to turn off case-sensitivity
for just one condition, you would just put (?-i) at the beginning of it.
Procmail's regexps don't need to be "more unique".


Philip Guenther
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail