-Original Message-
From: Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And for anyone who says "upgrade", please note that many firms in the real
world are still forcing a base perl version of 5.005_03 or 5.6.1 for
development. Still.
My weekend project is to demonstrate that you are an optimist.
-Original Message-
From: "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I can state the compelling reason for this one -- it's way too
confusing when $1, $2, $3, etc. correspond to $/[0], $/[1], $/[2], etc.
>In many discussions of capturing semantics earlier in the year,
nearly everyone usin
From: Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But $1 in Perl 5 wasn't the same as $1 in a shell script.
Sure--but that's not what I said.
I'm all for breaking things that need breaking, which is why I keep my mouth
shut most of the time--either I see the reason or I suspect (that is, take on
faith,
-Original Message-
From: Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Our target audience is only somewhat from a Perl 5 background. People
from Java, from Python, from C, and even just starting to program will
be learning Perl 6, and they would rather have all the language be
zero-based, rather tha
This is a valuable discussion, and I hope people will take this up on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] as well.
Thanks,
John A
see me fulminate at http://www.jzip.org/
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:13:36 -0800 Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're not supposed to use string concatenation
> all that often anyway...
I'm not supposed (for some value of supposed) to use Perl at my job, but I do,
and I suspect I use string concatenation in about one script in five,
Garrett Goebel said:
> Which stands out best?
> @a «*» @b
> @a (>*<) @b
> @a <)*(> @b
> @a >)*(< @b
> @a [>*<] @b
> @a [)*(] @b
> IMHO [>*<]
I say go with the one with the cutest name.
Garrett's choice is the bow-tie operator--not bad.
This one: (>*<) is also a pretty good bow-tie.
This
