Re^11: Truncating after the last period

\X [4] Match Unicode "eXtended grapheme cluster"

Hm. So let me see if I have this right.

Because the OP mentioned the word "characters" -- even though he didn't mention ~~unicode~~ (Oops. PST) Unicode -- you are saying that we can no longer use the regex metachar '.', because we don't know that it won't be Unicode, and we therefore run the risk of splitting an "eXtended grapheme cluster".
Which in turn implies that we should never use the '.' metachar.
Which of course ~~begs~~(PST) leads to the questions:
Why have '.' if you must always use \X instead?

Why not simply replace the '.' semantics with the \X semantics and have done with it.

I suspect the reason is PST, but I'll keep an open mind.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re^11: Truncating after the last period

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^12: Truncating after the last period by Jim (Curate) on Aug 23, 2011 at 00:13 UTC
Like I wrote before, "You just have to know it and use it." Perl's got it. Almost every other programming language doesn't.	[reply]
Re^13: Truncating after the last period by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 23, 2011 at 00:28 UTC
Like I wrote before, "You just have to know it and use it." Ah! Back to allusion. When argument fails you, pretend you know something no one else does. Perl's got it. Almost every other programming language doesn't. Perhaps that should tell you something. Maybe no other language has it, because no other language needs a manual workaround for it's broken Unicode semantics. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply]