On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 08:24:20PM -0800, Ashley Winters wrote:
: I'm still going to prefer using :=, simply as a good programming
: practice. My mind sees a big difference between building a parse-tree
: object and just grepping for some word I want in a string. Within a
: rule{} block, there is n
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 08:24:20PM -0800, Ashley Winters wrote:
>
> I was working on the (possibly misguided) assumption that there's a
> cost to capturing, and that perhaps agressive capturing isn't worth
> having "on" in a one-liner. Some deep part of my mind remembers $`
> being bad, I think. I
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:52:54AM +, Matthew Walton wrote:
> Of course, it then begs the question about
>
>
>
> if we're thinking of parallels with qw//-like constructs, which I
> certainly am. I'm not quite sure what that would do, as it collides
> slightly with the existing rule m
Larry Wall wrote:
I'm still thinking about what «...» might mean, if anything. Bonus points
for interpolative and/or word-splitty.
I'm perhaps not being entirely serious, but if you want something
word-splitty and interpolative, how about this (which may cause unwanted
physiological side effects
