Me writes:
: > : Would something like these DWIM?
: > :
: > : # match pat1 _ pat2 and capture pat2 match:
: > : / pat1 { ($foo) = / pat2 / } /
: >
: > Yes
:
: So a match in a closure starts where the outer match
: was. Simple enough.
:
: Will:
:
: # match pat1 _ pat2 _ pat3 and ca
> : Would something like these DWIM?
> :
> : # match pat1 _ pat2 and capture pat2 match:
> : / pat1 { ($foo) = / pat2 / } /
>
> Yes
So a match in a closure starts where the outer match
was. Simple enough.
Will:
# match pat1 _ pat2 _ pat3 and capture pat2 match:
/ pat1 { ($foo)
Luke Palmer writes:
: I'm sort of side-tracking from the trend of discussions, but I was just
: thinking that I always found it annoying how you had to double backslashes
: in single-quoted strings. I like the bash's behavior with regard to this
: much better... I mean, the whole idea behind s
On 5/20/02 8:04 PM, "Luke Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
claimed:
> 'You think I' _ q{'} _ 'm knit-picking!'
Ugh. If you really don't like back-slashing single quotes, do this:
q{You think I'm knit-picking!};
I would agree that in a q{} context, it is silly that a double-backslash
prints a single
I'm sort of side-tracking from the trend of discussions, but I was just
thinking that I always found it annoying how you had to double backslashes
in single-quoted strings. I like the bash's behavior with regard to this
much better... I mean, the whole idea behind single-quoted strings is tha
