Uri Guttman wrote:
TC ($this = $that) =~ s/foo/bar/;
TC for (@these = @those) { s/foo/bar/ }
TC You can't really do those in one step without it.
RFC 164 v2 has a new syntax that lets you do the above or, if you want:
$this = s/foo/bar/, $that;
@these = s/foo/bar/,
RFC135: Require explicit m on matches, even with ?? and // as delimiters.
C?...? and C/.../ are what makes Perl hard to tokenize.
Requiring them to be written Cm?...? and Cm/.../ would
solve this.
(Nathan Torkington)
RFC138: Eliminate =~ operator.
Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
RFC135: Require explicit m on matches, even with ?? and // as delimiters.
This one is along a different line from these two:
RFC138: Eliminate =~ operator.
RFC164: Replace =~, !~, m//, and s/// with match() and subst()
Which I could see unifying. I'd ask people
($foo = $bar) =~ s/x/y/; will never make much sense to me.
What about these, which are much the same thing in that they all
use the lvaluability of assignment:
chomp($line = STDIN);
($foo = $bar) += 10;
($foo += 3) *= 2;
func($diddle_me = $protect_me);
$n =
What about these, which are much the same thing in that they all
use the lvaluability of assignment:
And don't forget:
for (@new = @old) { s/foo/bar/ }
--tom
