Re: perldoc of s///ee wrong or just misleading?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: perldoc of s///ee wrong or just misleading? by LanX (Saint) on Dec 28, 2014 at 16:20 UTC
I know what you mean and I agree about what is happening, but the perldoc is wrong! it should say `ee Execute right side as code then eval the resulting string.` [download] NOT `ee Evaluate the right side as a string then eval the result.` [download] see: lanx@lanx-1005HA:~$ perl -MO=Terse -e ' s/(x)/$1.$1/ree ' LISTOP (0x9f99668) leave [1] OP (0x9fa6040) enter COP (0x9f99688) nextstate PMOP (0x9fa2f20) subst LOGOP (0x9fa2e20) substcont UNOP (0x9fa2f00) entereval [256] # --- string eval of resu +lt UNOP (0x9fa2c58) null LISTOP (0x9fa2be8) scope # --- precompiled $1.$ +1 OP (0x9fa1b28) null [181] BINOP (0x9fa2c38) concat [3] UNOP (0x9fa2cb8) null [15] PADOP (0x9fa2d30) gvsv GV (0x9fd4c90) + 1 UNOP (0x9fa2c18) null [15] PADOP (0x9fa2c98) gvsv GV (0x9fd4c90) + 1 -e syntax OK [download] Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)}	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^2: perldoc of s///ee wrong or just misleading? by LanX (Saint) on Dec 28, 2014 at 21:12 UTC
> If hypothetically $& was assignable to, then the following are roughly equivalent: maybe better `s/PAT/STR/ <=> m/PAT/ && $& = "STR"; s/PAT/CODE/e <=> m/PAT/ && $& = do {CODE}; s/PAT/CODE/ee <=> m/PAT/ && $& = eval do {CODE}; s/PAT/CODE/eee <=> m/PAT/ && $& = eval eval do {CODE}; ... and so on` [download] Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)}	[reply] [d/l]