Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2010
Quoth public@khwilliamson.com (karl williamson):
>
> +Starting in Perl 5.14, a C<.> (dot) immediately after the C<?> is a
> +shorthand equivalent to C<-imsx>. Any positive or negative flags may
> +follow the dot, so
> +
> + (?.x-i:foo)
> +
> +is equivalent to
> +
> + (?x-ims:foo)
> +
> +(The C<-i> wasn't necessary, but did no harm.)
FWIW I'm not convinced allowing (?.-i:) is useful. It's always
redundant, and I suspect would just be confusing.
The way I would document this is
(?.xi:foo) has exactly the flags /xi, regardless of where it is
interpolated.
(?x-i:foo), by contrast, will 'inherit' flags from the outside if
they aren't specified explicitly.
I see (?.xi:) as the 'simple' case, and the existing syntax as more
complicated. It's only a side-effect of the implementation that it's
easier to inherit flags when interpolating than to preserve them.
Yves: if it helps, (?x-s:foo) is analogous to chmod a+r-w foo, and
(?.x:foo) is analogous to chmod a=r foo.
Ben
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next