On Jan 2, 2009, at 4:46 AM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> # STEP 2: Assemble <E,V,R,D> tuple from regex parts
> # <E,V,R,D> case 1: case 2: case 3: case 4: case 5:
> case 6:
> # X:X-X:X X:X-X X:X X: X-X X
> %evr_tuple_select 2357 237_ 23__ 2___ _23_ __5_
This macro determines the mapping from sub-patterns to the tuple
The scatter/gather operation in the mapping is necessary for more
support than what is currently implemented, where E=1, V=2, R=3, D=4 is
But perhaps an alternative syntax, using the implicit position to hide
the sub-pattern index, and having an explicit (and opaque, there's
particularly holy about "E", "V", "R", and "D" tokens as long as the
same characters appear in the %evr_tuple_order precedence permutation)
single character identifier for a sub-pattern match.
Here's an explicit example, permutations, like daylight savings time,
is difficult to discuss unambiguously (implicit positional example based
on 1 rather than 0 as first index):
# STEP 2: Assemble <E,V,R,D> tuple from regex parts
# <E,V,R,D> case 1: case 2: case 3: case 4: case 5:
# X:X-X:X X:X-X X:X X: X-X X
%evr_tuple_select _EV_R_D _EV___R _EV_____ _E_____ __VR___
Hmmm, case 5 "_23_" might be incorrect, I would have naively expected
"E" in position 2.
Not looked (you likely have), will check and correct.
There's also a (possible) ambiguity in case 3 "X:X" or a missing case
7 candidate as "X::X". yawn ...
I personally don't care much; either implementation is straightforward
of the configuration syntaxes needs to be done.
73 de Jeff
Received on Fri Jan 2 18:42:37 2009
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s