On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:18:17AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: Are the -X functions still going to be there? I definitely hope so!
Certainly. They're useful, and one of the things people love about Perl.
In fact, we're enhancing them to be stackable, so you can say
if -r -w -x $filename {...}
to "and" the conditions. Or maybe there's a better solution to that
now that we have junctions, on the order of
if $filename ~~ -r & -w & -x {...}
Then we also get our "or" for free. We'd just say that ~~ binds
the default of -X just as it does m// or s///.
The only fly in the ointment is that this is awfully ambiguous because
-X is a unary operator looking for an argument, and you're not giving
it one. But it might think the next thing is a sub ref starting with '&'.
Ouch. Not sure where to go with that, other than require space or parens
when ambiguous.
: However, to come to the actual question, it has happened to me to have to
: do, in perl5 that is:
:
: perl -lne 's/^"//;s/"$//;print if -e'
:
: or (less often)
:
: perl -lne '$o=$_;s/^"//;s/"$//;print $o if -e'
:
:
: Ok: no much harm done (to my fingertips). But then, talking about
: huffmanization, could a standard adverb be provided for -X's to the effect
: of specifying that the passed filename is quoted, say in double (or if
: sensible in single) quotes: for I find that to be a common filelist
: "format". Ideally, what I'd like to do is
:
: perl -lne 'print if -e :q'
It seems to me that -e «$_» would handle most of these cases, as long as
whitespace always comes in quoted so that you always end up with one word.
That seems more general than a special option to -X ops.
Larry
