On Tue, 8 May 2001, Larry Wall wrote: > In this view, * and < could just be two different kinds of "expandable" flags. > But I'm uncomfortable with that, because I'd like to be able to say > > lazy_sub(<$STDIN, <$STDIN, <$STDIN, <$STDIN) > > to feed four lines to lazy_sub without defeating the prototype, er, > signature checking. Maybe you have to us *<$STDIN to do both. But that > would probably say to slurp the whole rest of the file. You know, it would be really cool if you specify the number of lines you wanted like so: <$STDIN # One line *<$STDIN # All available lines *4<$STDIN # Next 4 lines Or even: *$num_lines<$STDIN # Numifies $num_lines, gets that many *int rand(6)<$STDIN # Gets 0-5 lines *&mySub($bar)<$STDIN # mySub returns num, gets that many Dave
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns David L. Nicol
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns David L. Nicol
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dan Sugalski
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Larry Wall
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns David L. Nicol
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Damian Conway
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dave Storrs
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns John Porter
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Larry Wall
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Bart Lateur
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dan Sugalski
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Simon Cozens
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Damian Conway
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dave Storrs
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Larry Wall
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns David L. Nicol
- Re: Apoc2 - <STDIN> concerns Dave Storrs