On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 01:30:15PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Y'know, I pointed out before why I think this is a superfluous issue.
> You have to either change your regexp, or change the indentation of your
> here docs terminator when you move your code around.
I think it would be best for us
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> No, it still has all the problems of any other regex-based solution.
> If you shift the code right or left, it breaks (due to the \s{8}) and
> you're back to counting whitespace again.
Y'know, I pointed out before why I think this is a superfluous issue.
You have to
Glenn Linderman wrote:
> I think $mesg wins up with the value of "1" the way you've coded it.
Sorry, I missed the placement of the (). $mesg is fine.
--
Glenn
=
There are two kinds of people, those
who finish what they start, and so
on... -- Robert Byrne
__
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 10:52:16AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Before you scream "Bloody murder", please read on...
I'll wait patiently for the end...
>if( $is_fitting && $is_just ) {
> die subst /\s{8}(.*?\n)/$1/g, qq/
> The old lie
>Dulce et decorum est
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Solves problem #1, indented terminator, except that it adds two newlines
> (more later).
I never found anything later about these extra newlines... so if this idea
has merit, it needs to be finished.
> However, it leaves 2 and 3. Let's try adding in a regexp:
>
>if( $i
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:52:16 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>We already have q//, qq//, and qx// which duplicate their
>functions far more flexibly. Question: Do we really need here docs?
With your above functions, you always need to be able to escape the
string end delimiter. Therefore, you will al
Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Actually, to me this thread underscores how broken here docs are
>themselves. We already have q//, qq//, and qx// which duplicate their
>functions far more flexibly. Question: Do we really need here docs?
Yes.
Try generating lots of HTML, Javascript, Postscript, or other
lan
At 10:52 AM 9/14/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Actually, to me this thread underscores how broken here docs are
>themselves. We already have q//, qq//, and qx// which duplicate their
>functions far more flexibly. Question: Do we really need here docs?
I have thought this before, but I think the
> Show me where this fails and I'll shut up about it.
Actually, to me this thread underscores how broken here docs are
themselves. We already have q//, qq//, and qx// which duplicate their
functions far more flexibly. Question: Do we really need here docs?
Before you scream "Bloody murder", pleas
