Never said they are going away. I said you now have to do some completely odd funky syntax to do character classes as we know them.
(well not really, because it soon starts looking completely unlike RegEx... [^a-b] compared to BUT character classes have alway as long as I have know been []... some syntax seems essential and such, should be unchanging.+*()[] and later {}?... This modifiers seem to be the core basic syntax of all regex engines. What next, to much a single character we replace . with (not real code), or how about * with... my point it [] is basic syntax, it doesnt' need changing.
Now here is my fun Perl6 question.
Before I could do [^[:alpha:][:num:].*].... Perl 6 is what?
isn't correct since that is not ONE character class.
> maybe? (though it also doesnt' look right)... this seems to me to look like [^[:alpha:]^[:num:]^.*] which is completely wrong (and doens't work)
#sarcasm# Yeah!!! Just what we need more RegEx fragmentation #/sarcasm#
Honestly, RegEx hasn't changed much since awk and when it did, Perl usually led the way. The changes though usually just added features or tweaks, my RegEx still basically looked the same though whether I used VIM, Python, ASP, C++, Perl,.
Shortly after reading the changes, I was aghast. Sure some of the changes make sense but some are going completely against RegEx as we know them now (getting rid of character classes for one []) . Sure you can use the p5 modifier or do the funky syntax to use [] but the issue is its a radical change.
This is a bad thing(tm). This is going to force all us RegEx people who currently using 4 or 5 different RegEx tools to not only learn minor differences based on each app, but we will be forcec to learn a COMPLETE DIFFERENT subset of RegEx syntax incompatible with anything else.
Now wait you say, Perl has always led the way and other tools seem to use perl compatable RegEx libraries. Not so with Perl6. Have floated this question out on a couple developer lists (PHP for one) and everybody is saying, Perl 6 RegEx support isn't going to happen. They are all happy with the current state of RegEx's. This is especially go to cause hell with PHP's perl_regex functions. PHP has stated they are not going to support Perl6 RegEx. Real perl_regex compatible then huh.
Some the Perl6 changes are pretty good for RegEx, but the complete drop of support for character clases just isn't a good thing (tm).
My 2cents (who is glad at least Larry added the P5 modifier)
I would push the button, hell I would do it for free. This doesn't really make me unmoral/immoral / or EVIL as everybody is up in arms about, it makes me apathetic or uncaring.
Whats the difference between pushing this button and not give them money when you walk by them on the street. Having spent some time in 3rd world countries (4 years), you get pretty damn desensitized (?sp) to starving ppl and beggars really quick. Theoritically me not buying them a meal or giving money to them as I walk by is directly causing their death. This is no different than pushing a button (though less personal..think the difference between a bomber pilot and a trooper killing a guy w/ a pistol), the end result is the same, you directly killed the person.
Just because you can rationalize it doesnt' make it any less a *wrong*.
Web developing and IE XHTML quirk mode
on
Pet Bugs?
·
· Score: 1
While not as fancy and cool as the all the *real* programming bugs:P.... as a web developer, nothing pisses me off more than the IE XHTML quirks bug:
Guess what. This throws IE5.x and IE6 into quirks mode (instead fo strict like ?DOCTYPE is supposed to)... plays hell with the supposed IE css1 compliance.
Hopefully m$ can get off their butt and fix this KNOWN bug (been an issue since IE5.x) in 6.x
IASER is only used in regular infantry units from what I have seen and then only for night fighting. Prob is they show up bright as day in with PLAIN OLD NOD's. Has the same problem as tracers, they draw line back to the shooter. From what I have seen they are using these to replace tracers to solve the tracer visible line issue. Works great -v- 99% of our lowtec opponents though (who don't have NOD's). Sux just as bad as tracer -v- high tech opponents. Needless to say, this is A BAD THING(tm) if you an actual sniper where concealment is vital.
Snipers I have spotted with all use good old plain scoped crosshair sites, though some like the dotted reflex sites. Key thing with both these is they ARE PASSIVE. This is a key requirement for snipers, you don't need to give you position away. Active snipers are reg. infantry sharpshooters...THEY ARE NOT ACTUAL SNIPERS. (Though they think they are). Giving a guy a rifle and a scope doesn't make you a sniper.
Of all the movies I have seen you in, Icebreaker had to be the one of the best and also one that I would never have thought you to get a role in. How did you ever end up doing that flick? Do you actually speak any french? Fun/hard to cast?
Slashdot Mirror
Clarification:
... some syntax seems essential and such, should be unchanging .+*()[] and later {}? ... This modifiers seem to be the core basic syntax of all regex engines. What next, to much a single character we replace . with (not real code), or how about * with ... my point it [] is basic syntax, it doesnt' need changing.
.... Perl 6 is what?
... this seems to me to look like [^[:alpha:]^[:num:]^.*] which is completely wrong (and doens't work)
Never said they are going away. I said you now have to do some completely odd funky syntax to do character classes as we know them.
(well not really, because it soon starts looking completely unlike RegEx... [^a-b] compared to BUT character classes have alway as long as I have know been []
Now here is my fun Perl6 question.
Before I could do [^[:alpha:][:num:].*]
isn't correct since that is not ONE character class.
> maybe? (though it also doesnt' look right)
#sarcasm# Yeah!!! Just what we need more RegEx fragmentation #/sarcasm#
.
Honestly, RegEx hasn't changed much since awk and when it did, Perl usually led the way. The changes though usually just added features or tweaks, my RegEx still basically looked the same though whether I used VIM, Python, ASP, C++, Perl,
Shortly after reading the changes, I was aghast. Sure some of the changes make sense but some are going completely against RegEx as we know them now (getting rid of character classes for one []) . Sure you can use the p5 modifier or do the funky syntax to use [] but the issue is its a radical change.
This is a bad thing(tm). This is going to force all us RegEx people who currently using 4 or 5 different RegEx tools to not only learn minor differences based on each app, but we will be forcec to learn a COMPLETE DIFFERENT subset of RegEx syntax incompatible with anything else.
Now wait you say, Perl has always led the way and other tools seem to use perl compatable RegEx libraries. Not so with Perl6. Have floated this question out on a couple developer lists (PHP for one) and everybody is saying, Perl 6 RegEx support isn't going to happen. They are all happy with the current state of RegEx's. This is especially go to cause hell with PHP's perl_regex functions. PHP has stated they are not going to support Perl6 RegEx. Real perl_regex compatible then huh.
Some the Perl6 changes are pretty good for RegEx, but the complete drop of support for character clases just isn't a good thing (tm).
My 2cents (who is glad at least Larry added the P5 modifier)
I would push the button, hell I would do it for free. This doesn't really make me unmoral /immoral / or EVIL as everybody is up in arms about, it makes me apathetic or uncaring.
Whats the difference between pushing this button and not give them money when you walk by them on the street. Having spent some time in 3rd world countries (4 years), you get pretty damn desensitized (?sp) to starving ppl and beggars really quick. Theoritically me not buying them a meal or giving money to them as I walk by is directly causing their death. This is no different than pushing a button (though less personal..think the difference between a bomber pilot and a trooper killing a guy w/ a pistol), the end result is the same, you directly killed the person.
Just because you can rationalize it doesnt' make it any less a *wrong*.
While not as fancy and cool as the all the *real* programming bugs :P .... as a web developer, nothing pisses me off more than the IE XHTML quirks bug:
... plays hell with the supposed IE css1 compliance.
Guess what. This throws IE5.x and IE6 into quirks mode (instead fo strict like ?DOCTYPE is supposed to)
Hopefully m$ can get off their butt and fix this KNOWN bug (been an issue since IE5.x) in 6.x
-Eol
No. Not at least for US spec ops.
IASER is only used in regular infantry units from what I have seen and then only for night fighting. Prob is they show up bright as day in with PLAIN OLD NOD's. Has the same problem as tracers, they draw line back to the shooter. From what I have seen they are using these to replace tracers to solve the tracer visible line issue. Works great -v- 99% of our lowtec opponents though (who don't have NOD's). Sux just as bad as tracer -v- high tech opponents. Needless to say, this is A BAD THING(tm) if you an actual sniper where concealment is vital.
Snipers I have spotted with all use good old plain scoped crosshair sites, though some like the dotted reflex sites. Key thing with both these is they ARE PASSIVE. This is a key requirement for snipers, you don't need to give you position away. Active snipers are reg. infantry sharpshooters...THEY ARE NOT ACTUAL SNIPERS. (Though they think they are). Giving a guy a rifle and a scope doesn't make you a sniper.
Here is a high tech volunteer organization that goes into 3rd world country and helps their budding infrastructure.
http://www.geekcorps.org/
Thinking about doing it myself in a year or so.
Of all the movies I have seen you in, Icebreaker had to be the one of the best and also one that I would never have thought you to get a role in. How did you ever end up doing that flick? Do you actually speak any french? Fun/hard to cast?
Cheers,
Eöl