At 11:08 2009-02-21 -0800, Dallman Ross wrote:
I agree with Ruud. Sean, don't let your personal stylistic
preferences become so prejudicial that they devolve into
general warnings. There's nothing at all wrong with the syntax,
If you read my original posting, I clearly stated the reason for my opinion
on the matter - it wasn't a "general warning" - it was specifically
tailored to the multiple sequential rules necessary to accomplish the OP's
request, and that one regexp example which Ruud presented was presented
without the context of demonstrating how the OTHER day ranges would need to
be checked, and thus could easily be misinterpreted by newbies and people
trying to learn from what they read on this list.
Somebody, perhaps not the OP, but somebody, would read that and think that
they could use [8-14] in the regexp, because the only context of that
syntax was given for the first week example, which happens to fall nicely
into a single character character-class regexp.
have a stylistic preference for yourself and to state your
reasons, but don't call good syntax bad because of that.
Please re-read my original post, not the fragment quoted by
Ruud. Apparently, you've missed where I compared the syntaxes and stated
the reason for my comment - I *NEVER* claimed that Ruud's character class
syntax was in and of itself bad.
---
Sean B. Straw / Professional Software Engineering
Procmail disclaimer: <http://www.professional.org/procmail/disclaimer.html>
Please DO NOT carbon me on list replies. I'll get my copy from the list.
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail