Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2010
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 May 2010 21:30, Jesse Vincent <jesse@fsck.com> wrote: > > Neither of those arguments suggest that this is a case when we should > > break backward compatibility gratuitously. > > We shall have to agree to disagree that this is gratuitous breakage. I > think thats going far too far. > > > We may well be unable to do this cleanly and sanely. But that's a very > > different sort of argument. > > Basically we only have to worry about 'l' because of 'le', and 'f' > because of 'if'. Any others? > Not "if". it's already a syntax error because "i" is a valid option. Any of the following immediately following the delimiter are currently valid, but will become a syntax error (e.g. /foo/le+1) or different valid code (e.g. /foo/lt+1): - unless & until from /u - le & lt from /l - [none] from /t We're precluded from using these: - /a (and) - /f (for, foreach) - /n (ne) - /w (when, while) We don't have to worry about these: - cmp - eq - if - ge & gt - or - xor - builtin function - sub names - barewordsThread Previous | Thread Next