On Tue, 8 May 2001, Larry Wall wrote:
> In this view, * and < could just be two different kinds of "expandable" flags.
> But I'm uncomfortable with that, because I'd like to be able to say
>
> lazy_sub(<$STDIN, <$STDIN, <$STDIN, <$STDIN)
>
> to feed four lines to lazy_sub without defeating the prototype, er,
> signature checking. Maybe you have to us *<$STDIN to do both. But that
> would probably say to slurp the whole rest of the file.
You know, it would be really cool if you specify the number of
lines you wanted like so:
<$STDIN # One line
*<$STDIN # All available lines
*4<$STDIN # Next 4 lines
Or even:
*$num_lines<$STDIN # Numifies $num_lines, gets that many
*int rand(6)<$STDIN # Gets 0-5 lines
*&mySub($bar)<$STDIN # mySub returns num, gets that many
Dave
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns David L. Nicol
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns David L. Nicol
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dan Sugalski
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Larry Wall
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns David L. Nicol
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Damian Conway
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dave Storrs
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Larry Wall
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Bart Lateur
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dan Sugalski
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Damian Conway
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dave Storrs
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Larry Wall
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns David L. Nicol
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dave Storrs
