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

\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.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]
      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]

        There is no conflict to resolve.

        So you're retracting your opinion that Perl's conflict resolution is "bizarre"? Why? What's your current stance then?

        I don't see why you're defending this

        Good, cause I don't see myself defending this either. I said the documentation should be improved.

[reply]
        A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom