On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:08:25 -0500, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> Peter Haworth wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:17:57 -0500, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> >
> >>Again, C<< "STRING".split(' ') >> is different than
> >> C<< "STRING".split(/\s+/) >>. The latter will add an empty element to the
> >>beginning of
Peter Haworth wrote:
On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:17:57 -0500, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Again, C<< "STRING".split(' ') >> is different than
C<< "STRING".split(/\s+/) >>. The latter will add an empty element to
the beginning of the string if there is leading whitespace, which is
not the behaivor <<>> w
On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:17:57 -0500, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> Again, C<< "STRING".split(' ') >> is different than
> C<< "STRING".split(/\s+/) >>. The latter will add an empty element to
> the beginning of the string if there is leading whitespace, which is
> not the behaivor <<>> will have (if it ac
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 10:16:20AM -0700, John Williams wrote:
: On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
: >
: > What's wrong with single quoted here-docs?
:
: What's wrong is that the documentation team is trying to allow \qq[]
: there too, contradicting their own assertion that backslashes are
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 09:46 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
3) allowing \qq[] in single-quoted here-docs.
PRO: it's consistent with single-quotes
CON: it contradicts the assertion that backslashes are not special
in single quoted here-docs
The problem is, as Larry said, that heredocs ar
> Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:16:20 -0700 (MST)
> From: John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 2) requiring balanced delimiters to be escaped,
>PRO: it's consistent with non-balanced delimiter requirements
>CON: you already can; don't force it those who don't want it
I'll say no, agreeing with
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
>
> What's wrong with single quoted here-docs?
What's wrong is that the documentation team is trying to allow \qq[]
there too, contradicting their own assertion that backslashes are not
special in that context.
> Don't forget that the backslash is already
John Williams wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
John Williams wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
With all of the new crazy quoting shenanagains, I'm not sure that the
"balenced brackets are fine" rule will still be possible; and thus end
delimeters will
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> John Williams wrote:
> >On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> >>With all of the new crazy quoting shenanagains, I'm not sure that the
> >>"balenced brackets are fine" rule will still be possible; and thus end
> >>delimeters will always need to be es
John Williams wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Peter Haworth wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 04:05:05 -0500, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
A string inside a \qq[] construct acts exactly as if it were an
interpolated string. Note that any end-brackets, "]", must be escaped
within th
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> Peter Haworth wrote:
> >On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 04:05:05 -0500, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> >>>A string inside a \qq[] construct acts exactly as if it were an
> >>>interpolated string. Note that any end-brackets, "]", must be escaped
> >>>within the the \qq[] constr
> There are a few special cases for delimeters; specifically :, ( and #.
> : is not allowed because it might be used by custom-defined quoting
> operators to apply a attribute. ( is not allowed because it is used to
> pass arguments to attributes.
But if there is no attribute, then qw(this is not
Peter Haworth wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 04:05:05 -0500, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
A string inside a \qq[] construct acts exactly as if it were an
interpolated string. Note that any end-brackets, "]", must be escaped
within the the \qq[] construct so that the parser can read it correctly.
Note
Drew Folta wrote:
=head3 <<>>; expanding a string as a list.
A set of braces is a special op that evaluates into the list of words
contained, using whitespace as the delimeter. It is similar to qw[]
from perl5, and can be thought of as roughly equivalent to:
C<< "STRING".split(' ') >>
Hmm
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 09:45 AM, Drew Folta wrote:
Hmm... should we mention the rough equivalence, or the technically
correct equivalence (which would be c<< "STRING".split(rx/\s+/) >>).
The answer to that question is the answer to this question: what is
the scope of this documen
Hi,
Most of my nitpicks have been covered by other people :)
Joseph F. Ryan said:
> =head3 Embedding Interpolated Strings
>
> Note that any end-brackets, "]", must be escaped within the the
> \qq[] construct so that the parser can read it correctly.
This is true regardless of whether the
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 05:09:35PM +, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> > '\ \ \h\e\l\l\o\ \ '
> >
> > '\'\\\ \\\ \\\h\\\e\\\l\\\l\\\o\\\ \\\ \''
>
> This is wrong. '\ \ \h\e\l\l\o\ \ ' gives you a string with nine
> backslashes.
I should learn to read. What you said was right.
andrew
--
Virgo:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 07:54:09PM +0200, arcadi shehter wrote:
> my take :
>
> non interpolating construct is a sequence of characters enclosed in
> delimiters for which perl switch off *any* perl-programm-like
> interpretation of the content. since perl have to find the end of
> this "I-am-not
Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
> Non-Interpolating constructs are strings in which expressions do
> not interpolate or expand. The exception to this rule is the
> backslash character C<\>. A single backslash which is followed
> by the current quoting delimiter, or t
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 03:46:25PM +, Andrew Wilson wrote:
>Non-Interpolating constructs are strings in which expressions do
>not interpolate or expand. The exception to this rule is the
>backslash character C<\>. A single backslash which is followed by
>another
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 03:46:25PM +, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> Except that not what it does.
Ah, indeed. It helps if you think and write in the same context. :-)
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:23:09AM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 12:27:16PM +, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:59:32AM -0500, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> > > Non-Interpolating constructs are strings in which expressions do not
> > > interpolate or e
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 12:27:16PM +, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:59:32AM -0500, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> > Non-Interpolating constructs are strings in which expressions do not
> > interpolate or expand. The exception to this rule is that the
> > backslash character, \, wi
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 04:05:05 -0500, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> > A string inside a \qq[] construct acts exactly as if it were an
> > interpolated string. Note that any end-brackets, "]", must be escaped
> > within the the \qq[] construct so that the parser can read it correctly.
>
> Note that an end-brac
Joseph F. Ryan writes:
>
> The base form for a non-interpolating string is the single-quoted
> string: 'string'. However, non-interpolating strings can also be formed
> with the q[] operator. The q[] operator allows strings to be made with
Ithink it's actually opposite:
The basic ( user e
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:59:32AM -0500, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> In the first string, perl will take each character in the first string
> literally and perform no special processing. However, the value of the
> variable $animal is inserted into the second string string in place of
> the text $ani
One final change to my own fix:
> > with the q[] operator. The q[] operator allows strings to be made with
> > any non-space, non-letter, non-digit character as the delimeter instead
> > of '.
>
> The q[] operator allows strings to be delimited by any non-space,
> non-letter,
> non-digit charact
The content looks great. I have a few grammatical suggestions, but nothing
serious...feel free to ignore.
> =pod
>
> =head1 Strings
>
> A literal string is formed when text is enclosed by a quoting
> operator; there are two types: interpolating and non-interpolating.
Kinda confusing. How about:
28 matches
Mail list logo
