Re: (tye)Re: fixing Perl's inconsistencies

Hmm? $x =~ 0 would be like $x = $x ~ 0, and ~ is unary. No go. ;).

I ran a funny problem, though, with that operator. I was neatening somebody's code:

$this=someFunc();
$that=result($this);
$that=~s/(\d+)/data($1)/eg;
[download]

And I just padded the = with whitespace:

$this = someFunc();
$that = result($this);
$that = ~s/(\d+)/data($1)/eg;
[download]

And was baffled momentarily when $that started holding a large number. Then I noticed that number seemed a lot like bitwise negation of 0. D'oh.

japhy -- Perl and Regex Hacker

Comment on Re: (tye)Re: fixing Perl's inconsistencies Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
(tye)Re2: fixing Perl's inconsistencies by tye (Sage) on Feb 20, 2001 at 22:33 UTC
japhy, just in case you didn't get it... Why would anyone write `$x =~ 0`? The code I wanted was `$x= ~0`. It is just the flip side to what you are asking for: There are already enough ambiguities. (And I found it mildly amusing.) - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: (tye)Re2: fixing Perl's inconsistencies by japhy (Canon) on Feb 20, 2001 at 22:44 UTC
AhhhHHHH. I see now. `for $x (11 .. 80) { print "$x,"; print $x=~0 ? "\n" : " "; }` [download] Ha ha ha ha ha! I used `$x=~0`! `japhy` -- Perl and Regex Hacker	[reply] [d/l]