On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:44:32 -0400, John Porter wrote: >Nathan Wiger wrote: >> >> I do think >> it's worth considering if we're dead-set on losing =~. > >But are we? I hope not. I *like* the =~ syntax, and I would hope we could extend it to more functions that change one of their parameters, like sysread/read: $bytes_read = $string =~ sysread FILE, $bytes_to_read; -- Bart.
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on ... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on ... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on ... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on ... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on ... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on ... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on ... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on ... Casey R. Tweten
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on ... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on ... John Porter
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on ... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on ... John Porter
- New match and subst replacements for =~... Nathan Wiger
- Re: New match and subst replacements fo... Mark Senn
- Re: New match and subst replacements fo... Randy J. Ray
- Re: New match and subst replacements fo... Nathan Wiger
- Re: New match and subst replacements fo... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on ... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on ... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matches, eve... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matches, even wit... Damian Conway