Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> Well, it just stacks arguments on the end, even with open-ended
> prototypes:
>
>@a =~ my_user_sub($arg); # @a = my_user_sub($arg, @a)
What it means is, you can't prototype the thingy that could be
expected on the LHS of the =~, when function is open-ended,
because i
John Porter wrote:
>
> Not familiar with indirect object notation?
Insulting non-argument. I'm not replying to it.
> Who was it that suggested changing the m// operator to the match()
> function, and the s/// operator to the subst() function?
That would be me.
> I suppose I could have propos
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > If =~ allowed "indirect object" notation as -> does, then we could write
> >
> > s $str (pat){rep};
> > and
> > for ( grok %db /Name/$name/g ) {
>
> Yeah, but I'm not sure what those are supposed to do.
Not familiar with indirect object notation?
How ab
> If =~ allowed "indirect object" notation as -> does, then we could write
>
> s $str (pat){rep};
> and
> for ( grok %db /Name/$name/g ) {
Yeah, but I'm not sure what those are supposed to do. They look way too
obscure for me.
As written I don't see an advantage in the RFC. I th
Markus Peter wrote:
> --On 23.08.2000 4:31 Uhr + Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>
> > The calling syntaces of m()/s() should be consistent with other forms of
> > function call; this should be achieved not by eliminating the traditional
> > C form from m()/s(), but by allowing any function to be
--On 23.08.2000 4:31 Uhr + Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> The calling syntaces of m()/s() should be consistent with other forms of
> function call; this should be achieved not by eliminating the traditional
> C form from m()/s(), but by allowing any function to be called with
> C.
I'm not so s
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Allow Calling Any Function With A Syntax Like s///
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Aug 2000
Version: 1
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 139
=head1 ABSTR
