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 |