From: Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-talk@...>
Date: 2005-11-27T23:18:28+09:00
Subject: Re: String#to_rx ?

Jeff Wood wrote:

> On 11/27/05, Nikolai Weibull
> <mailing-lists.ruby-talk@rawuncut.elitemail.org> wrote:

> > So in what way is String#escaped better than String#to_rx?

> When I read #to_rx I can only guess at the specifics of the call (
> something to do with regular expressions ... or perscriptions ) ...
> but what it's doing to the string, no idea...  when I read #escaped
> all the lights light up ... ah, you want an escaped version of the
> string.  There's a bit too much implicit in #to_rx

As Stefan Lang already pointed out, that's totally non-sensical.

> > You obviously haven't read "Apocalypse 5" or "Synopsis 5".

> Nope, I haven't. And I surely don't plan to.

So why do you feel that you can comment on the syntax?

> If you want Larry Walls "less perlish" perl ... by all means, perl6
> should be ready in about 5 years.

The regular-expression syntax planned for Perl 6 has very little to do
with Perl 6 itself.  I have no plans on waiting for or moving to Perl 6
once it is ready.  That's also the reason why I really want the planned
syntax in Ruby, so that there wouldn't be a compelling reason to do so.

I'm not saying that "Apocalypse 5" is gospel, but there are some good
ideas in it, and I think that now that we have the chance (with the
imminent release of 2.0) we should review all parts of the language and
make sure that they're all up to code.

        nikolai

-- 
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}