On 29 July 2014 23:54, Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote: > * Rafael Garcia-Suarez <rgs@consttype.org> [2014-07-24T11:51:40] >> I believe that this was discussed here some years ago, and that this >> was suggested by TomC. Anyway, I pushed a patch on rgs/nomagicopen. >> The patch is incomplete as it lacks docs and tests. I welcome feedback >> on the intent of the feature. > > I'm still not crazy about the one-off syntax addition, but I think that it's > the best we're going to see without setting an unrealistic bar for a new, > generic feature. If we ever *do* get <> adverbs, we can call this sugar for > one or blah blah blah it doesn't matter that much right now. :-) > > While my heart wants -n to be safe, my conscience tells me that we'll break > enough (bizarre, to my mind (except maybe regarding "-")) expectations that it > isn't worth doing. Probably we want -P and -N for safe opening. > > I am gratified to see that <<X>> fails for any X, as you've only made the > literal construct <<>> iterate. Awesome. I think we're going to want a better > error message, if possible, though, than: > > ~/code/perl5$ ./perl -e 'while (<<ARGV>>) { print }' 'ls |' > Can't find string terminator "ARGV" anywhere before EOF at -e line 1. As Abigail pointed out that might be a bit difficult to implement. Unless we write it «» instead :)Thread Previous | Thread Next