> > No thanks. Suppose I want: > > > > '$x = $a; > > $y = func(\I$arg1, $arg2, $arg3\E); > > Hmmm...should \Ifunc($arg1)\E be replaced by the return value of > func($arg1)? I don't think so. I think \I..\E should just impose qq{..} semantics on the text in between. So you'd still write: "......\I${\func($arg1)}\E......" or "......\I@{[func($arg1)]}\E......" Damian
- Re: RFC 226 (v2) Selective interpolation in single quoti... Jerrad Pierce
- Re: RFC 226 (v2) Selective interpolation in single ... Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: RFC 226 (v2) Selective interpolation in single ... Jerrad Pierce
- Re: RFC 226 (v2) Selective interpolation in single ... Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: RFC 226 (v2) Selective interpolation in single ... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 226 (v2) Selective interpolation in sin... Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: RFC 226 (v2) Selective interpolation in sin... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 226 (v2) Selective interpolation in... Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 226 (v2) Selective interpolation in... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 226 (v2) Selective interpolatio... Glenn Linderman
- Re: RFC 226 (v2) Selective interpolation in single ... Glenn Linderman
- Re: RFC 226 (v2) Selective interpolation in sin... Philip Newton
- Re: RFC 226 (v2) Selective interpolation in sin... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 226 (v2) Selective interpolation in single ... Philip Newton
- Re: RFC 226 (v2) Selective interpolation in single ... Andy Dougherty
- Re: RFC 226 (v2) Selective interpolation in sin... Nathan Wiger