Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2010
demerphq wrote:
> On 1 August 2010 21:19, Father Chrysostomos <sprout@cpan.org> wrote:
>> A slightly simpler case:
>>
>> $ perl -le '$_="CCCGGG"; s!.!@a{print("[$&]"),/./}!g'
>> [C]
>> [C]
>> [C]
>> [C]
>> [C]
>> [C]
>>
>> What’s happening is that the s/// does not reset PL_curpm for each iteration, because it doesn’t usually have to.
>>
>> The RHS’s scoping takes care of it most of the time. This happens with the /e modifier and with @{...}.
>>
>> In this example, though, we have a subscript, not a block. This subscript is in the same scope as the s/// itself.
>>
>> The assumption that the substitution operator will never have to reset PL_curpm itself appears to be incorrect. The attached patch fixes it.
>
> Hi, thanks for the patch. Im a little concerned that this might have
> deeper consequences than at first meet the eye, could we hold off on
> this one until we know more?
How will we find out more?
>
> Yves
>
>
>
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next