On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 10:20:14AM +0100, "Orton, Yves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > while /foo$bar{baz}(?{$x=1})/U$x\E/ might give
> >
> > handler('foo', 'constant');
> > handler('$bar{baz}' 'scalar');
> > handler('$x=1', 're-code');
> > handler('U', 'func');
> > handler('$x', 'scalar');
> > handler('E', 'func');
> >
> > perhaps ????
> >
> > Although I have no idea whether this would be useful.
> >
> > > - at runtime give me the constant text
> > > - at runtime give me the variable name
> > > - at runtime give me the variable's SV
> > > - at runtime give me the interpolated text
> >
> > I'm not quite sure how that would work, or why it would be useful.
>
> Couldn't these be used by serialization code to properly recreate the regex
> in context? For instance:
>
> my($v,$r)=qw(Foo);
> $r=qr/blah${r}blah/;
> print Dumper($v,$r);
> __END__
> $VAR1='Foo';
> $VAR2=qr/blah${VAR1}blah/;
IIRC, Ilya's original idea in implementing (??{ }) was that there
would also be a /p switch ( qr/blah${VAR1}blah/p ) that would do this.
(In fact, (??{ }) used to be (?p{ })).
