At 04:03 PM 6/14/02 -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >..+? Match at least one character that isn't a newline,
>
>I assume you meant '.+?'.
Yes, that is in fact what I typed.
>Avoid putting periods at the
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:33:57 -0500, Chris Dolan wrote:
>Sorry for the newbie-ish question, but can someone explain why =
>does not warn? Is it because (quoting perlop)
>
> $a += 2; is equivalent to $a = $a + 2; although without
> duplicating any side effects that dereferencing the lvalue
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>..+? Match at least one character that isn't a newline,
I assume you meant '.+?'. Avoid putting periods at the beginning of
a line since many mail agents do s/^\./../m.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>can someone explain why =
>does not warn? Is it because (quoting perlop)
>
> $a += 2; is equivalent to $a = $a + 2; although without
> duplicating any side effects that dereferencing the lvalue
> might trigger
>
>
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 08:34:03PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> What's so special about concatenation, anyway?
Welp, here's the change that fixed the 5.6 concat/warning bugs:
http://public.activestate.com/cgi-bin/perlbrowse?patch=10223&action=patch
and here's the thread on p5p about it.
http://ww
Sorry for the newbie-ish question, but can someone explain why =
does not warn? Is it because (quoting perlop)
$a += 2; is equivalent to $a = $a + 2; although without
duplicating any side effects that dereferencing the lvalue
might trigger
and the warn is considered a side effect
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 11:48:33AM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> Perhaps... (I feel like disagreeing, though.)
>
> Anyway:
>
> my($foo, $bar); $foo = $bar . 42;
>
> *should* warn.
It does in 5.8.0.
--
This sig file temporarily out of order.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:27:33 -0400 (EDT), Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
>>On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:21:16 -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>>
>>>The history is someone noticed that since this:
>>>
>>> my $foo; $foo = $foo . 42
>>> Use of uninitialized value at -e line 1.
>>>
>>>and this:
>>>
On Jun 14, Bart Lateur said:
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:21:16 -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
>>The history is someone noticed that since this:
>>
>> my $foo; $foo = $foo . 42
>> Use of uninitialized value at -e line 1.
>>
>>and this:
>>
>> my $foo; $foo .= 42
>>
>>are logically t
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:36:25 -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote:
>Can someone explain the first result?
>
>$ perl -wle '$_ = "small - medium - large";
>/- (.+?)$/; print $1;
>medium - large
>I was expecting just "large" with the non-greedy match.
Basic rule: non-greediness only affects the righ
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:21:16 -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>The history is someone noticed that since this:
>
> my $foo; $foo = $foo . 42
> Use of uninitialized value at -e line 1.
>
>and this:
>
> my $foo; $foo .= 42
>
>are logically the same, the former shouldn't warn.
Perh
11 matches
Mail list logo
