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 { ($foo)
Me writes:
: [modified repost due to warnock's dilemma]
:
: Would something like these DWIM?
:
: # match pat1 _ pat2 and capture pat2 match:
: / pat1 { ($foo) = / pat2 / } /
Yes, though I think we'll see people doing it more like this:
/ pat1 ( pat2 ) { $foo = $-1 } /
We might al
[modified repost due to warnock's dilemma]
Would something like these DWIM?
# match pat1 _ pat2 and capture pat2 match:
/ pat1 { ($foo) = / pat2 / } /
# match pat1 _ 'foo bar':
/ pat1 { 'foo bar' } /
# match pat2 if not pat1
/ { ! /pat1/ } pat2 } /
# match pat2 if
Larry said:
> I haven't decided yet whether matches embedded in
> [a regex embedded] closure should automatically pick
> up where the outer match is, or whether there should
> be some explicit match op to mean that, much like \G
> only better. I'm thinking when the current topic is a
> match state
