Skip to content

Conversation

@schultzdavid
Copy link
Collaborator

@schultzdavid schultzdavid commented Oct 12, 2025

Both are only mentioned without any details so far. Their behavior is documented at the bottom of roast S05-mass/stdrules.t.

As for at(n), I'm not entirely sure if presentation that I've chosen is the best, since at also installs a named capture and is nowhere explicitly called an anchor (although it works at least very similar to one).

Unicode set unions/differences are formed with `+` and `-`, never with a backslash before (verification: in roast, «- :» is used for set substraction [ripgrep command: rg '\- :'], whereas «\- :» never occurs [ripgrep command: rg '\\- :'])
@schultzdavid schultzdavid changed the title In regexes.rakudoc, add explanations for <same> and <at(n)> In regexes.rakudoc, add explanations for <same> and <at(n)>, and fix/clarify some more Oct 12, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@coke coke left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please verify whether rakudoc here is rendering as expected on the site (via another table that’s already out there, probably), and then standardize usage here.

\+ | set union
\- | set difference
C<+> | set union
C<-> | set difference
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You are using rakudoc in this column...

<?ww> | Within word | "t⏏w⏏o w⏏o⏏r⏏d⏏s~!"
<!ww> | Not within word | "⏏two⏏ ⏏words⏏~⏏!⏏"
<at(n)> | After nth character | "abc⏏de" for C<at(3)>
<!at(n)> | Not after nth char | "⏏a⏏b⏏cd⏏e" for C<!at(3)>
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

but using simple <>’s in this column.

@schultzdavid
Copy link
Collaborator Author

schultzdavid commented Oct 13, 2025

Please verify whether rakudoc here is rendering as expected on the site (via another table that’s already out there, probably), and then standardize usage here.

Ah, true. There really seems to be no such table using rakudoc inside: both rg -e 'C<.+>.*\s\|\s' and rg -e '\s\|\s.*C<.+>' find nothing, and same with L.

For the first two lines, we can go back to \+ and change \- to just -, that works (e.g. file Independent routines, line 848.)

For the lines from the second quote, I'll also remove the rakudoc syntax C<..> at the end.

@coke coke merged commit c247c79 into main Oct 13, 2025
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants