Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2010
On 24 November 2010 10:01, Abigail <abigail@abigail.be> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 09:27:50AM +0100, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: >> On 24 November 2010 08:57, Zefram <zefram@fysh.org> wrote: >> > In discussing (on #p5p) possible new operators, we ran into the issue >> > that the obscure ?PATTERN? syntax gets in the way of most uses we could >> > potentially make of the question mark. It was proposed that we could >> > deprecate that syntax to reclaim the question mark. Attached patch >> > does so. It leaves the match-once semantics still available through >> > m?PATTERN?. >> >> I'd be a bit nostalgic of this venerable piece of sed-like syntax, but >> I would not object to the deprecation. >> >> Can you give an example of future usage of "?" you were thinking about ? > > > I suggest we first have some actual cases where having "?" is a > hindrance. IIRC, in a recent situation where it was a "hindrance" > it was that in the many proposed names for the '&&->' operator, '->?' > would conflict with existing syntax. I don't see the conflict, if no whitespace is permitted in "->?" and if it's tokenized as the longest possible token always. Or maybe in pathological patterns like C<< ?$foo->? >> ? (I might have missed some discussion, my P5P backlog is huge) > But there were enough other possibilities left for many rounds of > bikeshedding. I did not get the impression ?PATTERN? really stood > in the way of progess. me neither. > I do not have much love for ?PATTERN?, which, except for some obfuscation, > I have never used, nor have I encoutered it on code I had to maintain. > But this smells a bit like deprecation for the sake of deprecation, and > that always makes me uneasy.Thread Previous