Re: parsing behavior of a subrule without/with a repetition specifier
[email protected] ((Randal L. Schwartz))
| Newsgroups | perl.recdescent |
|---|---|
| Organization | Stonehenge Consulting Services; Portland, Oregon, USA |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>>>>> "Damian" == Damian Conway <[email protected]> writes: Damian> I don't think C<x> is the right analogy for RecDescent repetition operators. Damian> The behaviour of C<*> and C<+> in regexes is a closer model. Damian> I guess it depends on your poitn of view. I would have said that the Damian> absolute consistency with which *every* repetition (regardless of its Damian> number) returns an array ref is better than the alternative: Damian> christmas: Damian> gold_rings(5) # returns array ref Damian> calling_birds(4) # returns array ref Damian> French_hens(3) # returns array ref Damian> turtle_doves(2) # returns array ref Damian> partridge_in_a_pear_tree(1) # returns scalar value Damian> Especially if you have to change the count at some later point, which Damian> would mess up any code relying on the type of value returned. I prefer it the way it is. (1) may say "match one", which is the same as leaving it off, but (1) is closer to (2) than to "". :) -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[email protected]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!