Nathan Wiger wrote: > > I do think > it's worth considering if we're dead-set on losing =~. But are we? Have you looked at RFC139? I hope the niceities of it for the perl programmer are more or less apparent. -- John Porter We're building the house of the future together.
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matc... John Porter
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matc... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matc... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matc... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matc... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matc... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matc... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matc... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matc... Casey R. Tweten
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matc... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matc... John Porter
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matc... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matc... John Porter
- New match and subst replacements for =~ and... Nathan Wiger
- Re: New match and subst replacements for =~... Mark Senn
- Re: New match and subst replacements for =~... Randy J. Ray
- Re: New match and subst replacements for =~... Nathan Wiger
- Re: New match and subst replacements for =~... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matc... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matc... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matches, even wit... Peter Scott