On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:44:32 -0400, John Porter wrote: >Nathan Wiger wrote: >> >> I do think >> it's worth considering if we're dead-set on losing =~. > >But are we? I hope not. I *like* the =~ syntax, and I would hope we could extend it to more functions that change one of their parameters, like sysread/read: $bytes_read = $string =~ sysread FILE, $bytes_to_read; -- Bart.
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Casey R. Tweten
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... John Porter
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... John Porter
- New match and subst replacemen... Nathan Wiger
- Re: New match and subst replac... Randy J. Ray
- Re: New match and subst replac... Nathan Wiger
- Re: New match and subst replac... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matc... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matches,... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matches, even wi... Damian Conway