Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Jürgen Exner, post: 4872027"] Sorry, my bad: Binary "!~" is just like "=~" except the return value is negated in the logical sense. You mean like lead and lead in English? Or + and + in C which, gasp, can be used for char, short, byte, int, long, float, pointers, and a myriad of others? Because you were looking at a function who's first argument is a regular expression and therefore checking out the documentation about regular expressions as mentioned at the root level of the documentation in "perldoc perl" seems like a good idea? True, for you it would be a major drawback because you couldn't rant about it any longer. [...] So are you suggesting that e.g. C's distinction between short, byte, char, int, long, unsigned, double, ultra-special-extra-big .... would be even better? Typing is an aid to the programmer to avoid errors by inadvertently using incompatible data types. However if the programming language automatically converts between different data types according to context and I can use them safely without ever thinking about a conversion, then that is as big a step forward as not having to manually deal with memory allocation and garbage collection of dynamic data structures. I think I did mention eval(). And yes I also mentioned that eval() (as well as RE when used with /e which is just an eval in disguise) breaks the paradigm. But still this is only one very specific place which you normally would not use in every-day code. Actually people are strongly advised not to use eval for strings unless they know exactly why they need to do it. Where's the problem? Any item with a $ up front is a variable, so you will probably find it in perldoc perlvar. The other two take arguments and do some computation. So chances are good you will find them either as functions (perldoc -f .....; no luck there) or in perldoc perlop as suggested by the root of the perldoc tree. A language that wants something better than \12 as a variable name for captured content from the 12th RE group? jue [/QUOTE]

Verification