Re^5: I'm surprized with \L, \l, \U and \u, are you too? :-)

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". )

Comment on Re^5: I'm surprized with \L, \l, \U and \u, are you too? :-)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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
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.