Re^3: I'm surprized with \L, \l, \U and \u, are you too? :-)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: I'm surprized with \L, \l, \U and \u, are you too? :-) by Anonymous Monk on Feb 21, 2011 at 10:38 UTC
\L\u makes no sense (would be the same as just \L) `$foo + 1 - 1` might not make sense either, but that is completely irrelevant, it should work as advertised so Perl treats it as \u\L (which was surely the intended effect). How would you know if it was the intended effect? If there were such a bizzare exception, surely it would be documented.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: I'm surprized with \L, \l, \U and \u, are you too? :-) by ikegami (Patriarch) on Feb 21, 2011 at 19:42 UTC
it should work as advertised It does since conflict resolution is not advertised to my knowledge. How would you know if it was the intended effect? It's called anticipation of common pitfall in language design. If there were such a bizzare exception It applies the rightmost applicable "one" modifier if any. Otherwise, it applies the rightmost applicable "all" modifier if any. What part of that is "a bizarre exception"? (Upd: The answer is that this isn't what's happening. Counter example "\Lfoo\ubar". )	[reply]
Re^6: I'm surprized with \L, \l, \U and \u, are you too? :-) by Anonymous Monk on Feb 22, 2011 at 01:53 UTC
It does since conflict resolution is not advertised to my knowledge. There is no conflict to resolve. The documentation states everything between \Q\E and \U\E or \L\E is escaped normally (\t becomes tab .... ), then the \Q\E or \U\E or \L\E is applied I don't see why you're defending this, you're wrong	[reply]
Re^7: I'm surprized with \L, \l, \U and \u, are you too? :-) by ikegami (Patriarch) on Feb 22, 2011 at 07:25 UTC
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.