On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 21:27 +0000, Michael Kay wrote:
On the subject of \b I'll note we do have \W and \w
So we do, I overlooked that. And we define it a little differently from
Perl:
[#x0000-#x10FFFF]-[\p{P}\p{Z}\p{C}]
So for example "+" is regarded as part of a word, while "-" isn't. Which
strikes me as totally useless, to be honest.
I agree.
We could fix that for XPath 2.1 I think. I'm not sure what the most
useful fix would be, I admit.
The Perl definition of "alphanumeric" plus "_" would probably work for
\w, if one took alphnumeric to mean Letters|Numbers, \p{L}|\p{N},
and is coincidentally closer to what you get in Perl if you do
use locale;
and your locale is (say) en_UK.UTF8, as it's then the same as
the POSIX fragment [[:alpha:][:digit:]_]
There are lots of things that could be added to regular expressions;
but \b is hard to emulate, useful, and also we seem to have a rather
odd \w. If \w is there, I think \b was omitted by mistake. Or that
\w was included by mistake!
Liam
--
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--