in reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: NO PERL 6
in thread NO PERL 6
I don't see this as any worse than the silent errors created by typing $f =~ $f when what you meant was $f = ~$f? Eg.
c:\test>perl -e "for $f ( @a = qw/0 1 2.3 fred . ''/) { print $f =~ $f +, '-', $f = ~$f, $/; }" 1-╧ 1-╬ 1-â•â•¤â• 1-ÖìÜ¢ 1-╤ 1-╪╪
Of course, it could compound the problem.
Personally, it seems that the search for an alternative to '.' for string catenation is avoiding the obvious choice for sake of not being "me too".
If the use of '+' and '+=' for this is undesirable for syntactic reasons, I wonder if its actually necessary to have a catenation char--why not simply use abuttment? Is there any situation when
$string = "dsadfkjasdkhakhds dhf sahd fsd " "sdshsa ashjashjas asjhasjhasdh"; $str = 'Fred is ' $num " years old\n";
would be ambiguous?
For an alternative to $str .= $more how about $str "= $more;?
Okay you lot, get your wings on the left, halos on the right. It's one size fits all, and "No!", you can't have a different color.
Pick up your cloud down the end and "Yes" if you get allocated a grey one they are a bit damp under foot, but someone has to get them.
Get used to the wings fast cos its an 8 hour day...unless the Govenor calls for a cyclone or hurricane, in which case 16 hour shifts are mandatory.
Just be grateful that you arrived just as the tornado season finished. Them buggers are real work.
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO PERL 6
by theorbtwo (Prior) on Dec 10, 2002 at 06:18 UTC | |
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 10, 2002 at 13:56 UTC | |
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Dec 10, 2002 at 15:27 UTC | |
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 10, 2002 at 16:21 UTC | |
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Dec 10, 2002 at 16:57 UTC | |
| |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO PERL 6
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Dec 10, 2002 at 14:08 UTC | |
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 10, 2002 at 14:59 UTC |