Re: "And" extended matching operator

[Nikolai Kondrashov]

On 11/28/2012 04:58 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> Would it be possible to add another extended matching operator to already
> supported ones? It's just we have "or" in @() and "not (or)" in !(), but no
> "and". And combining patterns without it is awkward.
>
> If I want to say "a and not b", I have to write "not (not a or c)", like this:
>
> !(!(a)|c)
>
> If we had "and" operator, say written like &(), it would be possible to write
> it as is instead:
>
> &(a|!(c))
>
> which would be more readable.
>
> Is there a chance to have such an operator added?

Or would it be more suitable to add support for '&' separator in the matching
operators instead? So "a and not b" could look like this:

@(a&!(b))

This leaves the possibility of using a mix of '&' and '|' separators in the
operators, but maybe we could state that they have equal precedence, which
would make the implementation simpler.

Sincerely,
Nick