Re: PATCH: [perl #58182] partial, "The Unicode Bug". Add unicode semantics for \s, \w

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:22:57AM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:56:59 +0200, Steffen Mueller <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Jan Dubois wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 May 2010, Eric Brine wrote:
> > >> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM, demerphq <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>> Basically we only have to worry about 'l' because of 'le', and 'f'
> > >>> because of 'if'. Any others?
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > >> Any of the following immediately following the delimiter are currently
> > >> valid, but will become a syntax error (e.g. /foo/le+1) or different valid
> > >> code (e.g. /foo/lt+1):
> > >>
> > >>    - unless & until from /u
> > >>    - le & lt from /l
> > >>    - [none] from /t
> > >>
> > >> We're precluded from using these:
> > >>
> > >>    - /a (and)
> > >>    - /f (for, foreach)
> > >>    - /n (ne)
> > >>    - /w (when, while)
> > 
> > I think these are MUCH more likely to be a problem than the three above.
> 
> I have used '/pat/and action' a LOT in one-liners, alwyas being aware
> that 'and' works, and 'or' doesn't

But one-liners are just one-liners. Write once, run once. Maybe twice
using the history function of ones shell. I'm all for backwards compatability,
but "it's going to break my one-liners" isn't much of an argument, IMO.


Abigail; '/pat/&&action' saves two characters.