Juerd skribis 2004-05-12 20:15 (+0200):
> But I think I still want to have some non-mutating version of s/// that
> returns the modified string, so that you can just write something like
> print s:gx/\w+/WORD/ for <>;
Actually, can't we just use the . for s///?
You'd then use $foo.s/// to ge
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Is it a special type of calling convention, e.g.:
>
> sub s (Regex $pat, Str $replace, bool ?$i) is doublequotelike returns(Str) {
Ooh, "doublequotelike" sounds so much 1984.
(Moreover it doesn't describe accurately the reality, which allows to
use different delimiter
On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 04:30, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > Is it a special type of calling convention, e.g.:
> >
> > sub s (Regex $pat, Str $replace, bool ?$i) is doublequotelike returns(Str) {
>
> Ooh, "doublequotelike" sounds so much 1984.
> (Moreover it doesn't des
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 14:22, Juerd wrote:
> Actually, can't we just use the . for s///?
Well, that brings up something that I don't think Larry has covered yet.
That is, it brings into question what s/// *is* in the grammar.
Is it a special type of calling convention, e.g.:
sub s (Rege
Aaron Sherman writes:
> On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 14:22, Juerd wrote:
>
> > Actually, can't we just use the . for s///?
>
> Well, that brings up something that I don't think Larry has covered yet.
> That is, it brings into question what s/// *is* in the grammar.
Well, I imagine it's just a macro ca
Juerd wrote:
Juerd skribis 2004-05-12 20:15 (+0200):
But I think I still want to have some non-mutating version of s/// that
returns the modified string, so that you can just write something like
print s:gx/\w+/WORD/ for <>;
Actually, can't we just use the . for s///?
You'd then use $foo.s///
