develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from November 2010

Re: [PATCH] deprecate ?PATTERN?

Thread Previous
Rafael Garcia-Suarez
November 24, 2010 01:34
Re: [PATCH] deprecate ?PATTERN?
Message ID:
On 24 November 2010 10:01, Abigail <> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 09:27:50AM +0100, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
>> On 24 November 2010 08:57, Zefram <> 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 Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About