On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 10:49:41PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> Imagine the following scenario: your script contains a doiuble-quotish
> 40 line here-doc, with a bunch of variables in it. Unforetunately, you
> forgot to set one, and you get the not so helpful complaint:
>
> use of unitialized value at line xxx
>
> where xxx is the line number for the line that contains the "<<" for the
> here doc. Now, what variable was it? Happy hunting!
This reminds me of a related but rather opposite desire I have had
more than once: a quotish context that would be otherwise like q() but
with some minimal extra typing I could mark a scalar or an array to be
expanded as in qq(). For example doubling the $ and @? $$foo, @@bar?
This comes in handy when you are generating big blocks of code on the
fly but only tiny parts of it needs to be interpolated. Unfortunately
the margin of my monitor is not enough to describe this wonderful idea
in a form of a RFC.
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
