Mark J. Reed skribis 2006-08-31 10:29 (-0400):
> >Another issue is how we're going to pass arguments to this method. s///
> >has very special syntax, that I don't think we can easily replicate.
> S05 says it's $str.subst(regex, string-or-block); presumably the flags would
> go on the regex?
Ah, block.
Still, though, How would you specify :g? It doesn't make a lot of sense
on rx// -- just like you can't use it with qr// in Perl 5.
> > I personally still prefer $foo.s/// and $foo.=s///
> I don't really like the combination of quotelike and method call syntaxes.
> I would happily take "s" as a replacement for the method name, but I don't
> think it can happily coexist with the operator.
I was thinking of a postfix op (not normal postcircumfix, but quoting).
Postfix ops happen to be called with the dot too, but aren't necessarily
the same as methods.
> > because I don't think substitution belongs in a smart match op.
> Well, that's the reason for the method version in perl6. Which, AFAICT,
> returns the new string instead of the Match object, which is as it should
> be. The only thing I don't like is the name. :)
No, the method just returns the new string. The "inline" substitution is
still done with ~~ (although you can probably use .=subst too, but
really I don't like that syntax at all.)
I don't think using a method (even if called "s") is good huffman
coding. My expectation is that copying substitution will be used much -
perhaps even more than mutating substitution!
$foo.subst(/foo/, "bar")
$foo.s(/foo/, "bar")
$foo.s/foo/bar/
Hm. I don't know how "but" works exactly, but in the realm of syntactic
sugar, this is appealing:
$foo but s/foo/bar/
(Note that while " but " is long, it's extremely easy to type.)
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
