On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 04:50:21AM EDT, Thomas Roessler wrote: > On 2004-05-18 14:45:40 -0400, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > > which in turn would require either (a) two new statements > > (nonalternates and unnonalternates in this case, maybe?) for > > every statement pair that currently uses regex lists, or (b) a > > "clever" overloading of the current alternates and unalternates > > commands to make them do "the right thing" by trying to guess > > which operation you wanted to invoke. > > That sounds solvable to me -- IF the regular expression passed to > unalternates is literally identical (strcmp == 0) to a regular > expression already "alternated", then delete that expression. > Otherwise, add the expression to the "un"-list. Well, you'd also have to do the converse when a regex is passed to the alternates command (checking to see whether an exactly identical regex is already in the "unalternated" list). This can start getting a little ugly, especially if somebody comes along tomorrow with a feature request that these statements collapse unneeded parentheses when performing the comparisons. > (I think we are doing something similar with header weeding already, > so this would just be consistent.) Well, whatever we're doing with header weeding doesn't allow you to unignore stuff that you haven't ignored already, with the sole exception of when you "ignore *" first. Maybe it just builds up a list of stuff to _not_ ignore instead if you give it an "ignore *" statement, but otherwise has identical semantics to alternates/unalternates? - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgp5ENZNmzuCu.pgp
Description: PGP signature