Re: todo: readpipe(LIST) -- what does that mean?

On Tuesday July 17 2012 12:37:00 PM Dave Mitchell wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 10:00:18PM -0600, Darin McBride wrote:
> > a) The todo is backwards: it looks like qx is the function behind readpipe
> > :-) However, since I don't think we want to complicate qx to take a list
> > (I think that "qwx( some list here)" would be of limited use without
> > interpolation, and qw doesn't interpolate, so I expect it to get messy
> > just from a UX perspective), what this todo effectively means is that qx
> > is now a subset of readpipe.  So I'm thinking that a first foray here
> > might be to just switch the implementation around such that we have a
> > "readpipe" op that is distinct from qx, and then have qx call the
> > readpipe op.  This should not affect any tests.
> Er, qx// is already a subset of readpipe;
> i.e. qx/foo/ is just short for readpipe qq/foo/, while readpipe can take a
> general argument, such as readpipe foo(1);
> They both resolve to the OP_BACKTICK op, implemented by Perl_pp_backtick().

They both resolve to backticks ;-)

The fact that readpipe lets the rest of the parser deal with how it gets its 
string doesn't seem to change much from what I'm looking at.

readpipe foo(1)

vs

`@{[foo(1)]}`

It's not like OP_BACKTICK has to handle either of these - they're resolved 
before Perl_pp_backtick ever gets called.

Maybe from what you're saying I can "just" look at changing readpipe's 
prototype and then dealing with it in Perl_pp_backtick.

My head is already swimming :-D

Thanks,

• todo: readpipe(LIST) -- what does that mean? by Darin McBride
• Re: todo: readpipe(LIST) -- what does that mean? by Dave Mitchell
• Re: todo: readpipe(LIST) -- what does that mean? by Darin McBride
• Re: todo: readpipe(LIST) -- what does that mean? by Dave Mitchell