Re: \z vs \Z vs $

2000-09-21 Thread Tom Christiansen
>I gather you're talking about //s making perl ignore the setting of $*. >You're right, I didn't know that. But I doubt if it's that important, >this variable already has been marked as deprecated since Perl5 came >out, about 5 years ago. It's a good candiadte to be removed in Perl6. Agreed. >My

Re: \z vs \Z vs $

2000-09-21 Thread Bart Lateur
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:16:20 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote: >>That was my second thought. I kinda like it, because //s would have two >>effects: > >> + let . match a newline too (current) > >> + let /$/ NOT accept a trailing newline (new) > >Don't forget /s's other meaning. I gather you're talki

Re: \z vs \Z vs $

2000-09-20 Thread Tom Christiansen
>Tom Christiansen wrote: >> Don't forget /s's other meaning. >Do you enjoy making people ask what you're talking about? Of course not. I enjoy giving people enough pointers to help them learn things for themselves. >What other >meaning did you have in mind, overriding $*? Yes. --tom

Re: \z vs \Z vs $

2000-09-20 Thread Robert Mathews
Tom Christiansen wrote: > Don't forget /s's other meaning. Do you enjoy making people ask what you're talking about? What other meaning did you have in mind, overriding $*? -- Robert Mathews Software Engineer Excite@Home

Re: \z vs \Z vs $

2000-09-20 Thread Tom Christiansen
>That was my second thought. I kinda like it, because //s would have two >effects: > + let . match a newline too (current) > + let /$/ NOT accept a trailing newline (new) Don't forget /s's other meaning. --tom

Re: \z vs \Z vs $

2000-09-20 Thread Bart Lateur
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:03:08 +0100, Hugo wrote: >In <12839.969393548@chthon>, Tom Christiansen writes: >:What can be done to make $ work "better", so we don't have to >:make people use /foo\z/ to mean /foo$/? They'll keep writing >:the $ for things that probably oughtn't abide optional newlines.

Re: \z vs \Z vs $

2000-09-20 Thread Tom Christiansen
>> "TC" == Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Could you explain what the problem is? >TC> /$/ does not only match at the end of the string. >TC> It also matches one character fewer. This makes >TC> code like $path =~ /etc$/ "wrong". >Sorry, I'm missing it. I know. On your

Re: \z vs \Z vs $

2000-09-20 Thread Chaim Frenkel
> "TC" == Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Could you explain what the problem is? TC> /$/ does not only match at the end of the string. TC> It also matches one character fewer. This makes TC> code like $path =~ /etc$/ "wrong". Sorry, I'm missing it. $_ = "etc\n";

Re: \z vs \Z vs $

2000-09-20 Thread Hugo
In <12839.969393548@chthon>, Tom Christiansen writes: :What can be done to make $ work "better", so we don't have to :make people use /foo\z/ to mean /foo$/? They'll keep writing :the $ for things that probably oughtn't abide optional newlines. : :Remember that /$/ really means /(?=\n?\z)/. And l

\z vs \Z vs $

2000-09-19 Thread Tom Christiansen
What can be done to make $ work "better", so we don't have to make people use /foo\z/ to mean /foo$/? They'll keep writing the $ for things that probably oughtn't abide optional newlines. Remember that /$/ really means /(?=\n?\z)/. And likewise with \Z. --tom