Front page | perl.perl6.language.regex |
Postings from August 2000
Nathan Wiger writes: > Honestly, not sure. Although, there are two things I'd say about it: > > 1. I don't think it's a showstopper for this RFC, since the > feature you are addressing is actually a new piece of > functionality. Hmm. This is exactly the same situation as with chomp() and somehow chomp() can tell the difference between: $_ = "hi\n"; chomp; and @strings = (); chomp @strings; But chomp seems to use @ as its indicator. You can't say: $_ = $a = "hi\n"; chomp $_, $a; If it sees that $, it figures its chomp SCALAR. I'm unsure if this is adequate for match, but it might be. > 2. I don't think it's even closely tied to this RFC itself. This is the mindset that worries me: every edge case needs another RFC. Look to what's already in Perl: does anything else behave like this? How does it get around it? Can we co-opt the way it works? Nat