Uri Guttman wrote: > > TC> ($this = $that) =~ s/foo/bar/; > TC> for (@these = @those) { s/foo/bar/ } > > TC> You can't really do those in one step without it. RFC 164 v2 has a new syntax that lets you do the above or, if you want: $this = s/foo/bar/, $that; @these = s/foo/bar/, @those; Consistent with split, join, splice, etc, etc. > but we need a better syntax for s/// that doesn't modify its string but > returns a copy which has had the substitution applied to it. See RFC 164 v2, all this is supported, as well as this: @str =~ s/foo/bar/; Which has been a pipe dream for some time. -Nate
- Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Mark-Jason Dominus
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Stephen P. Potter
- 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: Ove... Uri Guttman
- Re: copying and s/// (was... Nathan Wiger
- Re: copying and s/// (was... Brad Hughes
- Re: copying and s/// (was... Mike Lambert
- Re: copying and s/// (was... Nathan Wiger
- Re: copying and s/// (was... Tom Christiansen
- Re: copying and s/// (was... Tom Christiansen
- Re: copying and s/// (was... Tom Christiansen
- Re: copying and s/// (was... Tom Christiansen
- Re: copying and s/// (was... David L. Nicol
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Steve Fink
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Tom Christiansen