in reply to FMTYEWTK about split //

It's also a barrier to integration of the defined-or patch to 5.8.x, since a // where perl may be expecting either an operator or a term could mean defined-or or could mean ($_ =~ //). Without the feature, the latter would be overwhelmingly less likely to occur in real code.

Whoa... I tried really hard, but I really didn't get this at all. It's obvious you understand what you're talking about, but I think a large number of readers here (certainly most of those who would go to the Tutorials wing where this is likely to end up) won't have a clue what "the defined-or patch to 5.8" refers to, let alone what sort of distinction you're trying to make here. If this is really an important point, provide some more detail, and perhaps some code snippet(s) with comments or contrasting outputs to clarify the point. If it's not that important, then take it out, because it isn't helping.

The rest provides some useful detail (i.e. things that folks would want to know when using split // to best effect), but there is also a bit of useless detail (i.e. pedantry), which I would not commend in a "tutorial" piece.

I'd suggest you give it a day or two, then re-read it and consider how you would write it differently...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: FMTYEWTK about split //
by Trimbach (Curate) on Jan 21, 2004 at 04:29 UTC
      Yes, I know what the term "defined-or" refers to, but an average perl user knowing the arcanery involved in "the defined-or patch to 5.8" is sort of like a plumber knowing the particular alloy properties that distinguish the steel in his old hammer from that of his new one. Sure, a few plumbers may know something about this...
Re: Re: FMTYEWTK about split //
by hardburn (Abbot) on Jan 21, 2004 at 04:42 UTC

    Alternatively, thanks to the wonderful invention of Hypertext, one can simply link to a node that explains about it, and not have to clutter our writings explaining tangently related points.

    I wanted to explore how Perl's closures can be manipulated, and ended up creating an object system by accident.
    -- Schemer

    : () { :|:& };:

    Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated

      I can see someone following that link and saying to themselves, "what is Ponie"? :)