A curious logic

     "...are easy and IMO, not interesting..." 

juxtapositioned with 

     ", but I never found one..."

Vern or Vernette, doesn't this imply that either:

    (a) You didn't look very hard, since being easy, they should also
be easy to find

or

   (b) They are not so easy?

Also, if they are truly "not interesting..." as you say, then why discuss them?

Just wondering. It always piques my interest when a programmer, who,
like Spock, should be pragmatic and logical, isn't. Then again I guess
pure-logical programmers as I don't get out of the box much.

 

On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 00:56 +0100, Abigail wrote:

>> Years ago, while I was still writing JAPHs, I was looking for a regex
>> matching itself - and nothing but itself (regexes that match themselves,
>> and also other strings are easy and IMO, not interesting), but I never
>> found one. The search wasn't entirely fruitless, it did lead to:
>> 
>>        my $qr =  qr/^.+?(;).+?\1|;Just another Perl Hacker;|;.+$/;
>>           $qr =~  s/$qr//g;
>>     print $qr, "\n";
>> 
>> 
>> But that's a far cry from what I wanted to find.


What about this one?

^(??{$b=q(^(??{$b=q(%s);quotemeta(sprintf$b,$b)})\z);quotemeta(sprintf$b,$b)})\z

CU,
    Sec
--