Mike Lambert wrote: > > or even: > @a = s/a+/a/, @a; This is actually the native syntax from RFC 164. > Basically, the argument is that you could theoretically do @a =~ s/a+/a/ > with QS, along with many other things. So perhaps, imo, it would be best > to just let QS handle it. I'm fine with this. If you check out RFC 164, you'll see that the capability to do this: @a =~ s/a+/a/; is actually provided by a separate RFC, 170: "Generalize =~ to a special-purpose assignment operator". Comments on both RFCs are quite welcome, but I'd prefer people put them in the appropriate threads, just so I can keep all the discussions straight. -Nate
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Nathan Wiger
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Steve Fink
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Tom Christiansen
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Tom Christiansen
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Uri Guttman
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Tom Christiansen
- copying and s/// (was Re: Overlappi... Uri Guttman
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: O... Nathan Wiger
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: O... Brad Hughes
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: O... Mike Lambert
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: O... Nathan Wiger
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: O... Tom Christiansen
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: O... Tom Christiansen
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: O... Tom Christiansen
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: O... Tom Christiansen
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: O... David L. Nicol
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Steve Fink
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Tom Christiansen
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Tom Christiansen
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Nathan Wiger