>>>>> "DC" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DC> Uri Guttman wrote:
DC> Sure. Just as $42 is a shorthand for $/, so too $<whatever> is a
DC> shorthand for $/<whatever>.
>> but then what about the different index bases for $42 and $/? i
>> don't think that has been resolved (nor has mixing the $1.1 and $1
DC> Bear in mind that that reply was posted in haste, late at night, after
DC> a long day of teaching. We're lucky it as only off by one! %-)
DC> But it does raise an important point: the discrepancy between $42 and
DC> $/ *is* a great opportunity for off-by-on errors. Previously,
DC> however, @Larry have tossed back and forth the possibility of using $0
DC> as the first capture variable so that the indices of $/, $/,
DC> $/ match up with the "names" of $0, $1, $2, etc.
DC> I think this error--unintentional, I swear!--argues strongly that
DC> internal consistency within Perl 6 is more important than historical
DC> consistency with Perl 5's $1, $2, $3...
i would like them to be consistant too. you could also make $/ be the
same as $1 and not use $/ for a regular grab. then $0 and $/ could
be used for something special. but just 0 basing them both is fine with
me. the key is to align them. we all seem to agree this is a massive off
by 1 error waiting to happen.
we still haven't seen what @larry has to say about mixing $1[$j] and
$1.1 syntaxes (let's assume they both use the same index base).
Uri Guttman ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- http://www.stemsystems.com
--Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding-
Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org