![]() |
|
Clear questions and runnable code get the best and fastest answer |
|
PerlMonks |
Re^3: what would you like to see in perl5.12?by BrowserUk (Patriarch) |
on Aug 07, 2008 at 15:55 UTC ( #702911=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
As I originally proposed it, I don't think it would. In any legal printf format, % is followed one of %*+- #csduoxefgXEGbpniDUOF\d.. Which I think means that %{...} would not conflict with any existing formats, and would generate: Invalid conversion in printf: "%{" if it appeared in any existing code. The lack of backwards compatibility issues is the nice thing about that original proposal. Albeit that I'd extend/mutate my original proposal to encompass some of the further discussion it generated. It can easily be extended to make %{...} a generic, interpolate whatever is inside this embedded code block and convert the result to a string in the default manner. And that could further be extended in a manner in keeping with normal printf rules so that it can become: %fw.p{...} where the f, w & p follow the same rules for flags, width & precision as are applied to the standard s specifier. To simplify: %fw.p{xxx} acts pretty much like:
The code xxx is evaluated, the result converted to as string, and the string substituted as if %s had been used. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
In Section
Meditations
|
|