Hi Richard,
Richard Foley wrote:
> > New Plan
> >
> > So I would like to make a patch now, that will have 'n' short cut
> > for ANY code block, not only subroutines. And that should be done
> > without a regexp.
> >
> Hmmm, yes but there's always exceptions... consider arriving at the
On Thursday 04 September 2008 21:33:41 Heiko Ei�feldt wrote:
> Hello Richard,
>
> I discussed this topic and patch on PerlMonks, and got a general
> agreement, that the patch would have great merit.
>
Hi Heiko,
Good to hear that - I found the thread and appended my half'pen'th.
> New Plan
> =
Hello Richard,
I discussed this topic and patch on PerlMonks, and got a general
agreement, that the patch would have great merit.
The Problem
===
Then I discovered a corner case I don't handle well:
$c++; $d++; $e++; print 'map';
will not work as before with 'n'.
Suddenly I found the d
Richard Foley schrieb:
Just one thing, you might need to change the regex:
if ( $dbline[$line] =~ m{\bgrep\b}xms
|| $dbline[$line] =~ m{\bmap\b}xms
|| $dbline[$line] =~ m{\bsort\b}xms
) {
to handle join and reverse as well:
if ( $dbline[$line]
On Monday 01 September 2008 22:50:53 Heiko wrote:
>
> > \b(grep|join|map|reverse|sort)\b
>
> So I think I will take your proposal and will leave out 'join' and
> 'reverse'.
>
Ok.
> I also checked
> s expr
> and
> n expr
>
Good to hear :-)
> BTW:
> with the definition
> sub x1 {
> my $arg =
On Saturday 30 August 2008 22:21:34 Heiko Ei�feldt wrote:
>
> > 1. n <- next step over everything (including grep/map/sort).
> >
> > 2. s <- step into everything (including grep/map/sort).
> >
>
> Ok, here is what I did, patch is against Perl 5.10.0.
> Please review, thanks. My simple tests w
Richard Foley wrote:
> If you mean:
>
> 1. n <- next step over everything (including grep/map/sort).
>
> 2. s <- step into everything (including grep/map/sort).
>
> 3. forget nn and N.
>
> Then I would think this would be (mostly very) intuitive change, and
> the behaviour (most) people would
Richard Foley wrote:
> On Friday 29 August 2008 19:28:08 Heiko Eifeldt wrote:
> >
> > To Richard:
> > Afterwards I realized, $DB::single is to be used as a bitmask.
> > So it would be 8 instead of 3, since 4 is already taken.
> >
> Details, details ;-)
>
> > The only difference should be the ex
On Friday 29 August 2008 19:28:08 Heiko Ei�feldt wrote:
>
> To Richard:
> Afterwards I realized, $DB::single is to be used as a bitmask.
> So it would be 8 instead of 3, since 4 is already taken.
>
Details, details ;-)
> The only difference should be the execution of grep/map/sort/...
>
> I ei
"Spiros Denaxas" wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Richard Foley
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Heiko,
> >
> >> I could imagine $DB::single can be set to 3 for this 'accelerated'
> >> stepping.
> > >
> > It's a good idea.
To Richard:
Afterwards I realized, $DB::single is to be used
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Richard Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Heiko,
>
>> I could imagine $DB::single can be set to 3 for this 'accelerated'
>> stepping.
>>
> It's a good idea.
>
>> May I reserve the capital N for that command?
>>
> Nearly :-)
>
> I only mean you could use either '
Hi Heiko,
> I could imagine $DB::single can be set to 3 for this 'accelerated'
> stepping.
>
It's a good idea.
> May I reserve the capital N for that command?
>
Nearly :-)
I only mean you could use either 'nn' or 'N', equally. To be honest, the
former appeals a little more as an extention to
12 matches
Mail list logo
