From: Brian I. <in...@tt...> - 2002-06-19 15:23:28
|
On 19/06/02 11:01 -0400, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: > Brian Ingerson [mailto:in...@tt...] wrote: > > I have an issue to raise here. Why, Oren, are you against > > there being an > > _order_ to the regexps? > > Because I do want to allow adding implicit types later on. requiring an > order makes it much more of "a package deal". It brings us to a place where > we say "... and everything else is a string" which means never ever adding > any implicit type (that isn't surrounded by parenthesis or whatever). I > think it is possible to create a string regexp that will be DWIM (I > suggested a few). And I don't. The parens solution gives us 100% backwards compatibility for future implicits that start with word-chars. And the suggested string regexp allows us to still add implicits that start with non-word, non-indicator charaters, like $19.99. (Horrors!) Strings are king. Floats and Intses are princes. Dates cause debates. I have no desire to make anything else magical without some sort of indicator. The honeymoon is long over for implicits. They just aren't that compelling to warrant all this protection for future concerns. Cheers, Brian |