On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 14:22, Juerd wrote: > Actually, can't we just use the . for s///?
Well, that brings up something that I don't think Larry has covered yet. That is, it brings into question what s/// *is* in the grammar. Is it a special type of calling convention, e.g.: sub s (Regex $pat, Str $replace, bool ?$i) is doublequotelike returns(Str) { bool $did = false; if my $match = ($CALLER::_ =~ m:i($i)/$pat/) { $match = $replace; $did = true; } return $did; } or is it something more deeply buried in the parser? If it's just quoting, then that's (relatively) easy: class String { ... method s (...) is doublequotelike ... {...} } Otherwise, you would have to bury this deep in the parser as a special case with the definition of s/// and that seems of questionable value for the complexity you add. -- Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith "It's the sound of a satellite saying, 'get me down!'" -Shriekback