Regexp.new is old, and relies on C’ish magic values.
Lets write something ugly with the current initialize:
Regexp.new(‘a.*a’, 5, ‘U’)
Thats the same as /a.*a/uxim
The problem is these legacy values
Regexp::IGNORECASE = 1
Regexp::EXTENDED = 2
Regexp::MULTILINE = 4
I propose to let initialize take a hash.
Regexp.new(‘a.*a’, :ignorecase=>true, :extended=>true, :multiline=>true, :encoding=>:UTF8)
Ideas for other options: :interpret_warnings_as_errors, :verbose_mismatch
···
–
Simon Strandgaard
Robert
(Robert)
2 June 2004 21:48
2
+1
“Simon Strandgaard” neoneye@adslhome.dk schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20040602230945.768b8989.neoneye@adslhome.dk…
Regexp.new is old, and relies on C’ish magic values.
Lets write something ugly with the current initialize:
Regexp.new(‘a.*a’, 5, ‘U’)
Thats the same as /a.*a/uxim
The problem is these legacy values
Regexp::IGNORECASE = 1
Regexp::EXTENDED = 2
Regexp::MULTILINE = 4
I propose to let initialize take a hash.
Regexp.new(‘a.*a’, :ignorecase=>true, :extended=>true, :multiline=>true,
:encoding=>:UTF8)
Ideas for other options: :interpret_warnings_as_errors,
:verbose_mismatch
···
–
Simon Strandgaard
Robert Klemme wrote:
+1
“Simon Strandgaard” neoneye@adslhome.dk schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20040602230945.768b8989.neoneye@adslhome.dk…
Regexp.new is old, and relies on C’ish magic values.
Lets write something ugly with the current initialize:
Regexp.new(‘a.*a’, 5, ‘U’)
Thats the same as /a.*a/uxim
Robert, +1 ?? if we calculate the flags for ‘uxim’
then ‘u’ => 64, ‘x’ => 2, ‘i’ => 1, ‘m’ => 4 … sum=71
···
The problem is these legacy values
Regexp::IGNORECASE = 1
Regexp::EXTENDED = 2
Regexp::MULTILINE = 4
I propose to let initialize take a hash.
Regexp.new(‘a.*a’, :ignorecase=>true, :extended=>true, :multiline=>true,
:encoding=>:UTF8)
Ideas for other options: :interpret_warnings_as_errors, :verbose_mismatch
–
Simon Strandgaard
[snip]
I better fill in an rcr for this.
I have added an RCR entry… vote on it here
http://rcrchive.net/rcr/RCR/RCR258
···
Simon Strandgaard neoneye@adslhome.dk wrote:
–
Simon Strandgaard
Robert
(Robert)
3 June 2004 06:18
7
“Simon Strandgaard” neoneye@adslhome.dk schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20040603002341.48b0e0aa.neoneye@adslhome.dk…
David A. Black wrote:
Robert Klemme wrote:
+1
“Simon Strandgaard” neoneye@adslhome.dk schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20040602230945.768b8989.neoneye@adslhome.dk…
Regexp.new is old, and relies on C’ish magic values.
Lets write something ugly with the current initialize:
Regexp.new(‘a.*a’, 5, ‘U’)
Thats the same as /a.*a/uxim
Robert, +1 ??
I think +1 means “I vote yes” (or in this case perhaps, “I will vote
yes when the RCR is submitted on RCRchive”
I also like the idea of discarding these cryptic Regexp things.
ok… apparently +1 translates into ‘i vote yes’…
Right.
I guessed so.
Just wanted to point out my that the value 5 was sligthly wrong.
It should have been 7. 5+1 would only be 6 (halfway).
Halfway is often better than no progress at all. :-))
Regards
robert
···
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Simon Strandgaard wrote: