>Uri Guttman wrote: >> >> TC> ($this = $that) =~ s/foo/bar/; >> TC> for (@these = @those) { s/foo/bar/ } >> >> TC> You can't really do those in one step without it. >RFC 164 v2 has a new syntax that lets you do the above or, if you want: > $this = s/foo/bar/, $that; > @these = s/foo/bar/, @those; Those really aren't any more obvious to the reader than what we already have. Less so, in fact, since you can understand what the current ones are doing based on simple operators and precedences. --tom
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Tom Christiansen
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Tom Christiansen
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Uri Guttman
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Tom Christiansen
- copying and s/// (was Re: Overlapping RFCs 1... Uri Guttman
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: Overlappin... Nathan Wiger
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: Overlappin... Brad Hughes
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: Overlappin... Mike Lambert
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: Overlappin... Nathan Wiger
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: Overlappin... Tom Christiansen
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: Overlappin... Tom Christiansen
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: Overlappin... Tom Christiansen
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: Overlappin... Tom Christiansen
- Re: copying and s/// (was Re: Overlappin... David L. Nicol
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Steve Fink
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Tom Christiansen
- Re: Overlapping RFCs 135 138 164 Nathan Wiger