Uri Guttman wrote:
> .= could still be left working as that is a complete separate op from
> method invocation.
I see a major potential problem with that.
Assuming (which I do) that the equals operator will be
overridable, then you'll need to be able to write
$obj.='x';
meaning this (
"Stephen P. Potter" wrote:
>
> Oh, and since it hasn't been mentioned for awhile, I'd still prefer if =~
> and !~ went away and were replaced by match(string, [pattern], options),
> replace(string, [pattern], options) and trans(string, ["pattern"], options)
> or some such. This is one place wher
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Garrett Goebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
hispered:
| cmp ~<=>
| .= ~+=
| ~=+ (concat after)
| =~ =~
| !~ !~
It's not bad enough that we're getting a proliferation of trigraph
operators, now you w
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:42:43PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Uri Guttman wrote:
> >
> > on the other hand, i use .= all the time and wouldn't like to lose
> > it. schwern idea of ce doesn't work for me as only the op= stuff means
> > assignment and ce would break that (e for = isn't visual eno
From: "Jonathan Scott Duff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nathan Wiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: YA string concat proposal
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:05:24PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > Under the above plan
Uri Guttman wrote:
>
> on the other hand, i use .= all the time and wouldn't like to lose
> it. schwern idea of ce doesn't work for me as only the op= stuff means
> assignment and ce would break that (e for = isn't visual enough).
I was just thinking, too bad that Larry's claiming the colon
curr
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:05:24PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> While we're brainstorming a wish-list, here's something I've always
> wanted, a replacement for:
>
>$a = $b . $a;
I don't think there's any pressing need for this unless you can show a
common case where a prepend op would make t
> "NW" == Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NW>$a = $b . $a;
NW> Under the above plan, maybe this is:
NW>$a ca $b;
substr( $a, 0, 0, $b ) ;
$a =~ s/^/$b/ ;
just my $.02 on this. i rarely use bare . for concat. as someone else
mentioned, it is usually o
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:05:24PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
: Michael G Schwern wrote:
: >
: > cc and ce
: >
: > Perl 5 Perl 6
: > print "foo" . "bar";print "foo" cc "bar;
: > print 2 . 4;print 2 cc 4;
: >
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:05:24PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>$a = $b . $a;
>
> Under the above plan, maybe this is:
>
>$a ca $b;
>
> For "concat after"?
I'd rather it be called "pp" for prepend. :-)
It's good that we decided to let Larry design the language, otherwise
we'd be mired
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> cc and ce
>
> Perl 5 Perl 6
> print "foo" . "bar";print "foo" cc "bar;
> print 2 . 4;print 2 cc 4;
> print "foo " . ($i + 1);print "foo " cc ($i + 1);
> $foo .= "
11 matches
Mail list logo
