On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:37:22 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
print "Today's weather will be ${weather-temp} degrees and sunny.";
which would follow the "You want something funny in your interpolated
scalar's name or reference, you put it in curlies" rule.
I too feel that an approach like
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 05:31:44PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
A possibility that does not appear in RFC222.1 is to put tho whole
accessor expression inside curlies:
print "Today's weather will be ${weather-temp} degrees and sunny.";
which would follow the "You want something funny
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 10:58:26AM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
MJD has a "silly module" which can tie a hash to a function:
Interpolation.pm. I think I would like a special case, a specific hash
that is *always* tied to a function that returns the arguments. Make it,
for example, %$, %@ or %?.
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:36:50 -0800, Michael Fowler wrote:
Or maybe an alternative, using :
"foo foo(arg, arg, arg) bar"
"foo { foo(arg, arg, arg) } bar"
Ah, yes, {...}, I kinda like that. Unfortunately, in regexes, /{1,3}/
means matching 1 to three ampersands. There's a slight
Michael Fowler wrote:
Or maybe we need a more generic solution (as someone else suggested, I
forget who). Something that allows the arbitrary execution of code, much
like @{[ ]}, but cleaner. Unfortunately, I can't think of anything
suitable.
Whatever direction this discussion takes, I
The only decision, then, is to decide which context to use; if it deparses
to concatenation then it seems logical to use scalar context. This also
makes sense in that you can force list context with @{[ $weather-temp ]} if
you really wanted it.
$ perl -le 'sub w{wantarray?"WA":"WS"};print
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 07:24:39PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
The only decision, then, is to decide which context to use; if it
deparses to concatenation then it seems logical to use scalar context.
This also makes sense in that you can force list context with @{[
$weather-temp ]} if
