Re: [macker-developer] Part boundary regex question
Brought to you by:
barredijkstra,
melquiades
|
From: Paul C. <can...@po...> - 2005-06-11 14:16:44
|
Andriy -- You're entirely correct about how the regexps work. It
should be documented; I'll put this on my todo list.
Cheers,
Paul
On Jun 10, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Andriy Palamarchuk wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> I was having trouble dealing with packages because
> of nested classes. Had to look in the code,
> specifically MackerRegex class. It seems that Macker
> notation for part boundary (".") matches both - inner
> class specification ("$" string) and package boundary
> ("." string). Also, it seems that Macker has separate
> special notations for package boundary ("/" notation)
> and inner class name ("$").
>
> Is this correct?
> Right now documentation only describes "." notation.
> Could you please update the docs and include
> description of other notations as well?
> It is pity to not being able to use existing features.
>
> Thank you for a nice tool.
> Andriy
>
>
> PS my previous message is sitting somewhere in your
> approval queue :-) Check it out. Finally decided to
> subscribe so I won't bother you.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. How far can
> you shotput
> a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office
> luge track?
> If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy.
> Play to win an NEC 61" plasma display: http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20
> _______________________________________________
> Macker-developer mailing list
> Mac...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/macker-developer
>
> Macker home page: http://innig.net/macker/
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
"After hearing ten thousand explanations, a fool is no wiser.
But an intelligent person needs only two thousand five hundred."
-- Mahabharata
|