Your skill will accomplish what the force of many cannot |
|
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
I really like that idea.
There's just a minor point of bikeshedding: should it be (?s:.) instead of a simple dot? I can argue both ways: negated character classes include the newline (unless it's explicitly listed as excluded), and it becomes more predictable that way. On the other hand you gain more flexibility if respect the /s setting of the outer regex, allowing the caller to tweak its behaviour accordingly. The first point sounds more convincing to me, but I have to think a bit more about it. In reply to Re^2: Look-Arounds in Regexes are Hard (Common Use of a Negative Lookahead)
by moritz
|
|