Hacker Read

ntoskrnl · 2022-05-19 10:57:44

LOL you're right! I just pasted the template here, but my defaults are equivalent to plain old `?`. I don't use the match if `?` would work.

marcosdumay | karma 27273 | avg karma 1.67 · | 2022-07-15 13:06:11

You want the "?" operator.

jlokier | karma 5548 | avg karma 2.15 · | 2020-08-06 14:36:30

It has to be '?.(...)' not '?(...)', because '?(...)' is already part of valid syntax. For example "this.myOptionalfunction?('hello'):('goodbye')".

pfedor | karma 1096 | avg karma 2.46 · | 2013-05-21 02:06:42+00:00

Good to know, thanks.

I'd argue that perl gets it right--as the default behavior, this behavior would gravely violate the principle of least surprise, but for the 0.01% of people who want \d to match ?, there's no harm to making it available as an option you need to specifically request.

reply

jherdman | karma 1124 | avg karma 3.92 · | 2009-11-30 15:20:09+00:00

If you're capturing something you don't want, you can always prefix your match with '?:' to have a non-capturing group.

FWIW, I personally prefer the #match method. Some of the examples in this article just make me want to hurt people. Especially usage of $1, $2, etc.

reply

vvillena | karma 1362 | avg karma 2.74 · | 2019-10-12 11:45:24+00:00

You can write "lambda" instead of ?. DrRacket also has a shortcut to insert ? easily.

wodenokoto | karma 15554 | avg karma 2.59 · | 2016-10-31 11:21:32

How do I write "??"? I can only write "?"

cyphar | karma 11934 | avg karma 2.62 · | 2016-03-31 22:00:31+00:00

I started using ? as the leader (I don't do reverse searches). The other options (, \) always get in the way while programming. I might try the backtick, but it means that programming in languages that use backticks (Rust, I think) would be a pain.

packetlost | karma 3673 | avg karma 2.66 · | 2022-04-15 10:05:33

No, it doesn't. Using a '?' will cause a syntax error.

kps | karma 7825 | avg karma 2.95 · | 2023-05-13 09:20:51

That's awful. Can you have "<=" = "=" and "<=" = "?" but "=" ? "?"?

jaclaz | karma 7473 | avg karma 1.78 · | 2020-09-27 08:55:55+00:00

Appending just the question mark works here.

mst | karma 6386 | avg karma 2.15 · | 2021-09-21 11:53:07

In fact quite a lot of commands also respond to -?, which is my guess for what inspired this.

Either way, even an extremely imperfectly honoured convention is better than no convention at all.

reply

thih9 | karma 6590 | avg karma 2.78 · | 2021-09-12 04:25:58

How is the ? used?

thewayfarer | karma 213 | avg karma 8.52 · | 2017-11-12 01:52:27

>> ? vs ?

Also ? looks similar.

reply

tomatsu | karma 377 | avg karma 2.97 · | 2017-02-25 00:11:53+00:00

I'm using ? and ? for that.

zheshishei | karma 74 | avg karma 1.35 · | 2014-09-09 13:47:57

Any query string works. So, "?s=1" or "?x=1" for instance. If you're feeling lazy.

euroderf | karma 2838 | avg karma 0.82 · | 2023-11-20 01:09:43

But doesn't << /fred.md >> beat the heck out of something like << /fred?format=md >>?

rstuart4133 | karma 1916 | avg karma 1.75 · | 2021-03-23 10:27:00+00:00

Not quite. This works:

     (?:(?!>).)*>?

But that is a very long winded way of writing:

     [^>]*?>

which is long way of writing:

     [^>]*>

jmholla | karma 953 | avg karma 2.44 · | 2024-01-12 09:50:28

For what it's worth, I like to use backticks in these situations (e.g. `h?`). I think it reduces ambiguity a bit.

labster | karma 9935 | avg karma 3.3 · | 2019-10-31 01:23:22+00:00

Oh good, we can just use ? for everything now. Much simpler.