On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 04:30, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
Is it a special type of calling convention, e.g.:
sub s (Regex $pat, Str $replace, bool ?$i) is doublequotelike returns(Str) {
Ooh, doublequotelike sounds so much 1984.
(Moreover it doesn't describe
Juerd skribis 2004-05-12 20:15 (+0200):
But I think I still want to have some non-mutating version of s/// that
returns the modified string, so that you can just write something like
print s:gx/\w+/WORD/ for ;
Actually, can't we just use the . for s///?
You'd then use $foo.s/// to get
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 14:22, Juerd wrote:
Actually, can't we just use the . for s///?
Well, that brings up something that I don't think Larry has covered yet.
That is, it brings into question what s/// *is* in the grammar.
Is it a special type of calling convention, e.g.:
sub s
Aaron Sherman writes:
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 14:22, Juerd wrote:
Actually, can't we just use the . for s///?
Well, that brings up something that I don't think Larry has covered yet.
That is, it brings into question what s/// *is* in the grammar.
Well, I imagine it's just a macro called
Juerd wrote:
Juerd skribis 2004-05-12 20:15 (+0200):
But I think I still want to have some non-mutating version of s/// that
returns the modified string, so that you can just write something like
print s:gx/\w+/WORD/ for ;
Actually, can't we just use the . for s///?
You'd then use $foo.s///
