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
