John Porter wrote:
>
> Not familiar with indirect object notation?
Insulting non-argument. I'm not replying to it.
> Who was it that suggested changing the m// operator to the match()
> function, and the s/// operator to the subst() function?
That would be me.
> I suppose I could have proposed them in separate RFC's. But the two
> are already married in the regex "binding" operations...
Yeah, but I think they're unique operators, really.
> I've seen your RFC on this since you wrote that email.
> It's an interesting idea; but the problem with it, imo, is that, while
> it seems to jive nicely with perl's (current) set of built-ins, user-
> defined subs can (and typically do) have open-ended argument lists.
Well, it just stacks arguments on the end, even with open-ended
prototypes:
@a =~ my_user_sub($arg); # @a = my_user_sub($arg, @a)
In the above example, the two are exactly equivalent - one's just a
shortcut to the other. There's no reason it would act any differently
under any circumstances. Just as these wouldn't:
$oneval =~ mysub; # $oneval = mysub($oneval);
($two, $vals) =~ mysub; # ($two, $vals) = mysub($two, $vals);
-Nate
