Larry Wall skribis 2006-04-22 19:40 (-0700):
> Hmm, I almost never write "scalar " because I very rarely want to
> input a single line in list context. But leaving that aside...
I've used it a lot.
I do tend to use it less often as I move away from line based text
documents for storage.
> [101
Larry Wall wrote:
> On the other hand, -<> makes a pretty pathetic fish operator. So for
> the sake of argument, let's keep it =<> for the moment. But ignoring the
> tail leads us to the head end of the fish. What do we do about $ARGS?
> We could say this:
>
> =$fh : *$fh :: =<> : *<>
>
>
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 05:52:31PM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
: During my S03 cleanup today, I noticed that because *$fh and **$fh
: interpolates into the current argument list, it's always the same as
: =$fh under list context. So I wrote this paragraph:
:
: [Conjectural: File handles interpolate
During my S03 cleanup today, I noticed that because *$fh and **$fh
interpolates into the current argument list, it's always the same as
=$fh under list context. So I wrote this paragraph:
[Conjectural: File handles interpolates its lines into positional
arguments (e.g. to C>), so we can make C<=$
