On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:13:47 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote: >We already *HAVE* a token set that forces list context, thank you >very much. It's called "()=". I'm glad you like it. $_ = 'a!a!a!a!a!a'; $count = () = split /!/; print $count; --> 1 '()=' is not perfect. It is also butt ugly. It is a "dirty hack". p.s. Has anybody already suggested that we ought to have a nicer solution to execute perl code inside a string, replacing "${\(...)}" and "@{[...]}", which also won't ever win a beauty contest? Oops, wrong mailing list. -- Bart.
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Mark-Jason Dominus
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Mark-Jason Dominus
- Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches Richard Proctor