>I've RFCed making m mandatory on matches, which would remove some >of the current tokenizing confusion. I'm open to others. Doesn't seem to be worth it -- there's so much history of the mass convenience in Perl of being able to write if (/foo/) { .... } or print if /foo/ && /bar/ Making things harder on users doesn't balance against making it hard on developers, because the users outnumber the developers by several orders of magnitude. If your primary goal is trivial parsing, there's a *LOT* of other stuff you have to change. For example, no more pick your own quotes. And you can't have an angle operator, since it could be a less-than, nor can you have here docs, which might be left shifts. I don't see any reason to pick on pattern matching, arguably the most commonly done thing one can do in Perl, when all these very, very many other ambiguities still exist. If the goal is to make Perl parsable by emacs, might as well just say that. --tom
- RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matches, even with ... Perl6 RFC Librarian
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matches, e... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matche... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on ma... Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m o... Stephen P. Potter
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explici... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require exp... Carl Johan Berglund
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explici... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require exp... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... John Porter
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Casey R. Tweten
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Nathan Wiger