"Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2003-11-25 at 18:17:04, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> aString replace: aPattern with: aString.
>>
>> aString replaceAll: aPattern with: aString.
>
> Stop! Stop that at once! No small talk; we're here for
> serious discussions!
>
> :)
>
>> 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.
>
> Or you could have the method version take a closure/proc
> object/block/whatever, which gets run each time to generate the
> replacement. Quoting is then not an issue.
Well, yes, sorry, thought that was implicit. The macro form would
simply replace itself with an appropriate call to the
method String::sub(Rule $pattern, Block &replace_block) {...}
form. This is perl after all, no harm sprinkling a little syntactic
sugar. Catch is, the macro form can't really (safely) look like a
method call because at macro expansion time we don't know the
invocant's type (or even if it is an object).
> Hm. What was that about the Rubyometer? :)
Is that how Ruby does it then?
