On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:44:32 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Nathan Wiger wrote:
>>
>> I do think
>> it's worth considering if we're dead-set on losing =~.
>
>But are we?
I hope not. I *like* the =~ syntax, and I would hope we could extend it
to more functions that change one of their parameters, like
sysread/read:
$bytes_read = $string =~ sysread FILE, $bytes_to_read;
--
Bart.
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Casey R. Tweten
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... John Porter
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... John Porter
- New match and subst replacemen... Nathan Wiger
- Re: New match and subst replac... Randy J. Ray
- Re: New match and subst replac... Nathan Wiger
- Re: New match and subst replac... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require expli... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matc... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matches,... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 135 (v2) Require explicit m on matches, even wi... Damian Conway
