Re: another help on input record separator clarity please

"Chas. Owens" schreef:
> Dr.Ruud:
>> Chas:

>>> Is there a reason I am missing to use [[:blank:]] over [ \t]?
>>
>>  The [:blank:] matches (at least) 18 codepoints. unicount.pl:
>>
http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.****ters/2007/02/msg121080.html
>>
>>  I prefer some of the named ones, like [:blank:] and [:punct:] and
>>  [:xdigit:].
>
> Ah-ha, perlre is wrong then. It claims that space is 'A GNU extension
> equivalent to [ \t] , "all horizontal whitespace"', but that must only
> be true under the bytes pragma.

s/claims that space is/claims that blank is/

Be careful with using the byte pragma in that way, because it modifies
the behaviour of strings that have the utf8 flag on, which means you are
depending on the internal way that your perl executable implements
strings, IOW asking for trouble.


> It's perlbug time.

There are many voices that want to change the meaning of \d to [0-9]
only (from Perl 5.12 on).

Maybe we should get a \pd to be a shortcut for \p{IsDigit}. (idem for D,
s, S, w, W, etc.)

-- 
Affijn, Ruud

"Gewoon is een tijger."