Re^3: Oddness with regex quantifiers

Hmm .. but isn't the zero implied by the null field?

Not really, I don't think.
If perl accepted {,X}, I'm pretty sure some people would assume that it stood for {1,X}, not {0,X}. After all, one to X matches makes more sense than zero to X matches in many situations.
It's propably best to force people to make an explicit choice.

Comment on Re^3: Oddness with regex quantifiers

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Oddness with regex quantifiers by ikegami (Patriarch) on Nov 23, 2010 at 22:41 UTC
I'm pretty sure some people would assume that it stood for {1,X}, not {0,X}. That says nothing without an idea of how common such an assumption would be made and an idea of the size of the negative impact making that assumption would entail. one to X matches makes more sense than zero to X matches in many situations. It makes sense in some situations, not necessarily many. It's propably best to force people to make an explicit choice. It's even better not to break backwards compatibility.	[reply]
Re^4: Oddness with regex quantifiers by talexb (Chancellor) on Nov 23, 2010 at 22:14 UTC
Sorry, everyone, I guess I should have said 1, not 0. Alex / talexb / Toronto "Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds	[reply]
Re^5: Oddness with regex quantifiers by ikegami (Patriarch) on Nov 23, 2010 at 22:21 UTC
No difference. `$ perl -E'say "aaa" =~ /a{2,}/' 1 $ perl -E'say "aaa" =~ /a{2,1}/' Can't do {n,m} with n > m in regex; marked by <-- HERE in m/a{2,1} <-- + HERE / at -e line 1.` [download]	[reply] [d/l]


Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
	PerlMonks