* demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> [2012-01-25T10:51:14] > On 24 January 2012 03:03, Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote: > > * Father Chrysostomos <sprout@cpan.org> [2012-01-22T17:50:54] > >> Is the overloading pragma new enough to change without breaking things? > > > > Making "do { no overloading; qr{foo} }" return a Regexp=REGEXP(..) string is a > > bug fix. > > Just curious, but is that a ruling-from-on-high, or is it a fact? > > I really do wonder if no overloading in earlier perls would have > behaved as you describe. > > This is of course totally orthagonal to this being a bug. In 5.10.1, overloading.pm existed and Regexp were still SCALAR. "no overloading" did not get you the StrVal. This, I say, was a bug, too. It is not a regression or typo in the source, but a bad behavior to be fixed. -- rjbsThread Previous | Thread Next