Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
This reminds me of a related but rather opposite desire I have had
more than once: a quotish context that would be otherwise like q() but
with some minimal extra typing I could mark a scalar or an array to be
expanded as in qq(). For example doubling the $ and @?
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 09:17:31PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
This reminds me of a related but rather opposite desire I have had
more than once: a quotish context that would be otherwise like q() but
with some minimal extra typing I could mark a scalar or an
This would HAVE to be a very optional feature. I rely on undef
converting to a null string in many, many programs.
Surely in those programs you don't have -w turned on, because you wouldn't
want to see all those warning messages. So here is another idea: -w causes
string interpolation
Nathan Wiger wrote:
I don't know about this. What if someone writes:
print "You owe me $2, $name.\n";
With -w it'll print out the "correct" version?
With a warning, because $2 isn't defined.
You owe me $2, Nate.
But without it it won't?
You owe me , Nate.
You turn off
This reminds me of a related but rather opposite desire I have had
more than once: a quotish context that would be otherwise like q() but
with some minimal extra typing I could mark a scalar or an array to be
expanded as in qq().
I have wanted that also, although I don't remember why
Imagine the following scenario: your script contains a doiuble-quotish
40 line here-doc, with a bunch of variables in it. Unforetunately, you
forgot to set one, and you get the not so helpful complaint:
use of unitialized value at line xxx
where xxx is the line number for the line that
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 10:49:41PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
Imagine the following scenario: your script contains a doiuble-quotish
40 line here-doc, with a bunch of variables in it. Unforetunately, you
forgot to set one, and you get the not so helpful complaint:
use of unitialized
At 10:49 PM 9/13/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
Imagine the following scenario: your script contains a doiuble-quotish
40 line here-doc, with a bunch of variables in it. Unforetunately, you
forgot to set one, and you get the not so helpful complaint:
use of unitialized value at line xxx
This reminds me of a related but rather opposite desire I have had
more than once: a quotish context that would be otherwise like q() but
with some minimal extra typing I could mark a scalar or an array to be
expanded as in qq().
I have wanted that also, although I don't remember why just
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:56:53 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
I would rather solve this by requiring that Perl identify the thing that
was undef than what you propose below. Surely it can't be that hard.
Fine by me.
Only, AFAIK, Perl is only aware of "values", not of "variables".
--
Bart.
Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
This reminds me of a related but rather opposite desire I have had
more than once: a quotish context that would be otherwise like q() but
with some minimal extra typing I could mark a scalar or an array to be
expanded as in qq().
I have wanted that also,
Imagine that you could easily override the conversion of undef() into a
string, so that when stringified it returns something like "#UNDEF#"
instead of just an empty string. That would make debugging far more
easy: take a look at the output, and search for this sentinel string.
This would HAVE
Eric Roode wrote:
Imagine that you could easily override the conversion of undef() into a
string, so that when stringified it returns something like "#UNDEF#"
instead of just an empty string. That would make debugging far more
easy: take a look at the output, and search for this sentinel
13 matches
Mail list logo
