> On 12 Jun 2017, at 01:27, ToddAndMargo wrote:
> perl6 -e 'my $x = "\t"; if $x !~~ /<[A..Z a..z 0..9]>/ {say "out"} else {say
> "in"}'
>
> Would this be easier to do with $x.contains? Or would it
> be too worky?
.contains only takes a *single string* to look up. So it is only useful for
ch
if you can:
$s ~~ "foo"
$s ~~ /foo/
then wouldn't be good to have also:
$s.contains("foo");
$s.contains(/foo/);
IOW, overload .contains() with Str and Regex
F
On 06/12/2017 10:42 AM, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
On 12 Jun 2017, at 01:27, ToddAndMargo wrote:
perl6 -e 'my $x = "\t"; if $x !~
Thinking about this...
> On 12 Jun 2017, at 11:17, Francesco Rivetti wrote:
>
> if you can:
>
> $s ~~ "foo"
> $s ~~ /foo/
>
> then wouldn't be good to have also:
>
> $s.contains("foo");
> $s.contains(/foo/);
>
> IOW, overload .contains() with Str and Regex
>
> F
>
> On 06/12/2017 10:42 AM,
On 06/12/2017 01:42 AM, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
On 12 Jun 2017, at 01:27, ToddAndMargo wrote:
perl6 -e 'my $x = "\t"; if $x !~~ /<[A..Z a..z 0..9]>/ {say "out"} else {say
"in"}'
Would this be easier to do with $x.contains? Or would it
be too worky?
.contains only takes a *single string
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Francesco Rivetti wrote:
> if you can:
>
> $s ~~ "foo"
> $s ~~ /foo/
>
> then wouldn't be good to have also:
>
> $s.contains("foo");
> $s.contains(/foo/);
The latter is currently available as:
> "foobar".match(/'foo'/);
「foo」
> IOW, overload .contains() with St
> On 12 Jun 2017, at 22:04, Will Coleda wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Francesco Rivetti wrote:
>> if you can:
>>
>> $s ~~ "foo"
>> $s ~~ /foo/
>>
>> then wouldn't be good to have also:
>>
>> $s.contains("foo");
>> $s.contains(/foo/);
>
> The latter is currently available as:
>
>>
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
>> On 12 Jun 2017, at 22:04, Will Coleda wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Francesco Rivetti wrote:
>>> if you can:
>>>
>>> $s ~~ "foo"
>>> $s ~~ /foo/
>>>
>>> then wouldn't be good to have also:
>>>
>>> $s.contains("foo");
>>>