Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> print if /foo/ && /bar/
>
> Making things harder on users ...
Oh, puhlease; now you're telling us that requiring the user to
write instead
print if m/foo/ && m/bar/
is "harder"? Come on; this is perl; if we tell 'em this is the way
it has to be done, and they do it. If they can wrap their tiny
brittle brains around qw//, then they can handle m// too, not to
mention all the other (alleged) quirks of perl.
--
John Porter
We're building the house of the future together.
- RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matches, even with ... Perl6 RFC Librarian
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matches, e... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matche... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on ma... Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m o... Stephen P. Potter
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explici... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require exp... Carl Johan Berglund
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explici... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require exp... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... John Porter
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Casey R. Tweten
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require... John Porter
