Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2010
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:22:57AM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:56:59 +0200, Steffen Mueller <smueller@cpan.org> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Jan Dubois 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? > > > > [...] > > > > >> 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) > > > > I think these are MUCH more likely to be a problem than the three above. > > I have used '/pat/and action' a LOT in one-liners, alwyas being aware > that 'and' works, and 'or' doesn't But one-liners are just one-liners. Write once, run once. Maybe twice using the history function of ones shell. I'm all for backwards compatability, but "it's going to break my one-liners" isn't much of an argument, IMO. Abigail; '/pat/&&action' saves two characters.Thread Previous | Thread Next