Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2010
On 4 August 2010 15:38, karl williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote: > Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: >> >> * Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> [2010-08-01 22:35]: >>> >>> My alternative suggestion was to introduce a new grouping >>> construct, which I tentatively called (?~sixm:) (I don't much >>> like that, but there aren't many alternatives at this point), >>> which *does* do what you expect; and use that for >>> stringification instead. That way we change the stringification >>> once, now, and then never again. >> >> I’m unsure about how good an idea that is. >> >> Presumably the defaults can change in a future version of Perl, >> in which case a stringified pattern that uses this syntax will >> mean different things on different Perl versions. In some cases >> this will even magically do what you want, but it could equally >> be a pitfall. > > FWIW, I have given this some thought, and came to the conclusion that Perl > is almost certainly never going to change the defaults, because of the > backward compatibility issues. Except that its been discussed many times that being able to specify the default flags in a lexically scoped manner would be a useful feature. So while it might be true that /perl/ will not change the default flags, it is quite conceivable that perl will provide the user a way to do so. Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"Thread Previous | Thread Next