Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:23:30PM +0000, Smylers wrote:
>> This, however, is irritating:
>>
>> my @new = map { s:e/$pattern/$replacement/; $_ } @old;
>>
>> I forget the C<; $_> far more often than I like to admit and end up with
>> an array of integers instead of modified strings.
>
> That one gets me every now and then too.
>
>> So I'd like a more elegant way of writing that -- but I don't think
>> making the return value of C<s///> more complicated (and duplicating
>> data in the process) would be a nett gain.
>
> What if the method form of s/// didn't mutate the string, but returned
> the mutated result? Then, you'd just need to do something like:
>
> my @new = map { $_.s:e/$pat/$rep/ } @old
>
> Except I don't know how the method form of s/// would be spelt.
>
> $string.s:e/$pat/$rep/; # . and ~~ are almost the same?
> $string.sub($pat,$rep,"each"); # ick.
> $string.sub:e($pat,$rep); # hmm.
aString replace: aPattern with: aString.
aString replaceAll: aPattern with: aString.
Except... the second argument isn't strictly a string because it's
evaluated in the match context. Assuming we get a pure functional form
of the substitution operator, then scoping's going to be fun. If you
want a simple form with the signature:
method String::sub( Rule $pattern, String $replacement )
you're almost certainly going to have to implement that as a macro so
you can get at the string before it's interpolated.
