Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2010
On 19 May 2010 02:03, Jan Dubois <jand@activestate.com> wrote: > On Tue, 18 May 2010, Eric Brine wrote: >> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 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 >> - barewords > > Yes, but why bother? What is wrong with your previous suggestion to only allow > the new modifiers after a > > use 5.014; > > That lets us pick the letters based on mnemonic value instead of having to > work around some obscure edge cases. And the code using the new letters > will not work on earlier Perl versions anyways, so having the "use 5.014" > in there is a good idea anyways. > > This will also allow to us to turn any currently unused modifiers into syntax > errors right away for all 5.14+ code as well without breaking any compatibility. > > What's not to like? Only nit is i think covered by the -E option which implies a use LATEST; right? Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"Thread Previous | Thread Next