[PATCH] Remove support for ?PATTERN? without explicit 'm' operator #13504
Comments
From @ilmariThis has issued a deprecation warning since Perl v5.14 (commit ref ? $_ : [$_] -- |
From @ilmari0001-Remove-support-for-PATTERN-without-explicit-m-operat.patchFrom 98ef8c47630cdba5f44c04ecb006dfd82eb8e1f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Dagfinn=20Ilmari=20Manns=C3=A5ker?= <ilmari@ilmari.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 03:41:25 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Remove support for ?PATTERN? without explicit 'm' operator
This has issued a deprecation warning since v5.14 (commit 725a61d70),
and precludes using ? as an operator after a unary operator that
defaults to $_, such as:
ref ? $_ : [$_]
---
pod/perldelta.pod | 8 ++++++
pod/perldiag.pod | 9 ------
t/lib/warnings/toke | 15 +++++-----
toke.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
4 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
diff --git a/pod/perldelta.pod b/pod/perldelta.pod
index e36ae85..48b11ea 100644
--- a/pod/perldelta.pod
+++ b/pod/perldelta.pod
@@ -74,6 +74,14 @@ possible code points; that is, it is equivalent to C<qr/./s>. Thus
C<\p{All}> is no longer synonymous with C<\p{Any}>, which continues to
match just the Unicode code points, as Unicode says it should.
+=head2 Support for C<?PATTERN?> without explicit operator has been removed
+
+Starting regular expressions matching only once directly with the
+question mark delimiter is now a syntax error, so that the question mark
+can be available for use in new operators. Write C<m?PATTERN?> instead,
+explicitly using the C<m> operator: the question mark delimiter still
+invokes match-once behaviour.
+
=head1 Deprecations
XXX Any deprecated features, syntax, modules etc. should be listed here.
diff --git a/pod/perldiag.pod b/pod/perldiag.pod
index 61d144a..b979e6e 100644
--- a/pod/perldiag.pod
+++ b/pod/perldiag.pod
@@ -6218,15 +6218,6 @@ no way to tie the scalar itself when it held a typeglob, and no way to
untie a scalar that had had a typeglob assigned to it. If you see this
message, you must be using an older version.
-=item Use of ?PATTERN? without explicit operator is deprecated
-
-(D deprecated) You have written something like C<?\w?>, for a regular
-expression that matches only once. Starting this term directly with
-the question mark delimiter is now deprecated, so that the question mark
-will be available for use in new operators in the future. Write C<m?\w?>
-instead, explicitly using the C<m> operator: the question mark delimiter
-still invokes match-once behaviour.
-
=item Use of reference "%s" as array index
(W misc) You tried to use a reference as an array index; this probably
diff --git a/t/lib/warnings/toke b/t/lib/warnings/toke
index 02c6ccc..56fbfe9 100644
--- a/t/lib/warnings/toke
+++ b/t/lib/warnings/toke
@@ -1229,7 +1229,6 @@ $_ = $a = 1;
$a !=~ /1/;
$a !=~ m#1#;
$a !=~/1/;
-$a !=~ ?/?;
$a !=~ y/1//;
$a !=~ tr/1//;
$a !=~ s/1//;
@@ -1238,7 +1237,6 @@ no warnings "syntax";
$a !=~ /1/;
$a !=~ m#1#;
$a !=~/1/;
-$a !=~ ?/?;
$a !=~ y/1//;
$a !=~ tr/1//;
$a !=~ s/1//;
@@ -1249,7 +1247,6 @@ EXPECT
!=~ should be !~ at - line 7.
!=~ should be !~ at - line 8.
!=~ should be !~ at - line 9.
-!=~ should be !~ at - line 10.
########
# toke.c
our $foo :unique;
@@ -1351,13 +1348,17 @@ Non-octal character '8'. Resolved as "\o{123}" at - line 3.
########
# toke.c
use warnings;
-my $a = "foo";
-print $a =~ ?f? ? "yes\n" : "no\n" foreach 0..2;
+print ref ? "yes\n" : "no\n" foreach [], ''; # ? is unambiguosly an operator
EXPECT
-Use of ?PATTERN? without explicit operator is deprecated at - line 4.
yes
no
-no
+########
+# toke .c
+use warnings;
+$a =~ ?rand?; # ? is not a regex match
+EXPECT
+syntax error at - line 3, near "=~ ?"
+Execution of - aborted due to compilation errors.
########
# toke.c
use warnings;
diff --git a/toke.c b/toke.c
index 8ac0f31..90ee12b 100644
--- a/toke.c
+++ b/toke.c
@@ -6748,61 +6748,43 @@ If the next character is in (or extends into) the next chunk of input
TERM('@');
case '/': /* may be division, defined-or, or pattern */
- if (PL_expect == XTERMORDORDOR && s[1] == '/') {
+ if ((PL_expect == XOPERATOR || PL_expect == XTERMORDORDOR) && s[1] == '/') {
if (!PL_lex_allbrackets && PL_lex_fakeeof >=
(s[2] == '=' ? LEX_FAKEEOF_ASSIGN : LEX_FAKEEOF_LOGIC))
TOKEN(0);
s += 2;
AOPERATOR(DORDOR);
}
- case '?': /* may either be conditional or pattern */
- if (PL_expect == XOPERATOR) {
- char tmp = *s++;
- if(tmp == '?') {
- if (!PL_lex_allbrackets &&
- PL_lex_fakeeof >= LEX_FAKEEOF_IFELSE) {
- s--;
- TOKEN(0);
- }
- PL_lex_allbrackets++;
- OPERATOR('?');
- }
- else {
- tmp = *s++;
- if(tmp == '/') {
- /* A // operator. */
- if (!PL_lex_allbrackets && PL_lex_fakeeof >=
- (*s == '=' ? LEX_FAKEEOF_ASSIGN :
- LEX_FAKEEOF_LOGIC)) {
- s -= 2;
- TOKEN(0);
- }
- AOPERATOR(DORDOR);
- }
- else {
- s--;
- if (*s == '=' && !PL_lex_allbrackets &&
- PL_lex_fakeeof >= LEX_FAKEEOF_ASSIGN) {
- s--;
- TOKEN(0);
- }
- Mop(OP_DIVIDE);
- }
- }
- }
- else {
- /* Disable warning on "study /blah/" */
- if (PL_oldoldbufptr == PL_last_uni
- && (*PL_last_uni != 's' || s - PL_last_uni < 5
- || memNE(PL_last_uni, "study", 5)
- || isWORDCHAR_lazy_if(PL_last_uni+5,UTF)
- ))
- check_uni();
- if (*s == '?')
- deprecate("?PATTERN? without explicit operator");
- s = scan_pat(s,OP_MATCH);
- TERM(sublex_start());
- }
+ else if (PL_expect == XOPERATOR) {
+ s++;
+ if (*s == '=' && !PL_lex_allbrackets &&
+ PL_lex_fakeeof >= LEX_FAKEEOF_ASSIGN) {
+ s--;
+ TOKEN(0);
+ }
+ Mop(OP_DIVIDE);
+ }
+ else {
+ /* Disable warning on "study /blah/" */
+ if (PL_oldoldbufptr == PL_last_uni
+ && (*PL_last_uni != 's' || s - PL_last_uni < 5
+ || memNE(PL_last_uni, "study", 5)
+ || isWORDCHAR_lazy_if(PL_last_uni+5,UTF)
+ ))
+ check_uni();
+ s = scan_pat(s,OP_MATCH);
+ TERM(sublex_start());
+ }
+
+ case '?': /* conditional */
+ s++;
+ if (!PL_lex_allbrackets &&
+ PL_lex_fakeeof >= LEX_FAKEEOF_IFELSE) {
+ s--;
+ TOKEN(0);
+ }
+ PL_lex_allbrackets++;
+ OPERATOR('?');
case '.':
if (PL_lex_formbrack && PL_lex_brackets == PL_lex_formbrack
--
1.8.3.2
|
From @LeontOn Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <
+1 This syntax is very much standing in the way. I'd love us to get rid of it. Leon |
|
The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open' |
From @cpansproutOn Thu Jan 02 01:03:54 2014, LeonT wrote:
Standing in the way of what? IIRC, this was deprecated so that we could introduce new prefix opera- If we simply remove this, then ref ? foo : bar becomes valid syntax, So getting rid of this syntax now to get it ‘out of the way’ will Maybe we should wait till after 5.20, so we have plenty of time to -- Father Chrysostomos |
From @ilmariThe two attached patches remove the now obsolete "ternary operator Feel free to apply the latter before the original patch in this ticket -- |
From @ilmari0002-Remove-ternary-operator-parsed-as-search-pattern-war.patchFrom 70f2deab27dbc20b6c6d13dcd960a6160179efc4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Dagfinn=20Ilmari=20Manns=C3=A5ker?= <ilmari@ilmari.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 14:06:51 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Remove "ternary operator parsed as search pattern"
warning
Since ?PATTERN? without 'm' is no longer supported, there is no
ambiguity any more.
---
pod/perldiag.pod | 10 ----------
toke.c | 10 ++--------
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/pod/perldiag.pod b/pod/perldiag.pod
index b979e6e..41b3050 100644
--- a/pod/perldiag.pod
+++ b/pod/perldiag.pod
@@ -4711,16 +4711,6 @@ construct, not just the empty search pattern. Therefore code written
in Perl 5.9.0 or later that uses the // as the I<defined-or> can be
misparsed by pre-5.9.0 Perls as a non-terminated search pattern.
-=item Search pattern not terminated or ternary operator parsed as search pattern
-
-(F) The lexer couldn't find the final delimiter of a C<?PATTERN?>
-construct.
-
-The question mark is also used as part of the ternary operator (as in
-C<foo ? 0 : 1>) leading to some ambiguous constructions being wrongly
-parsed. One way to disambiguate the parsing is to put parentheses around
-the conditional expression, i.e. C<(foo) ? 0 : 1>.
-
=item seekdir() attempted on invalid dirhandle %s
(W io) The dirhandle you are doing a seekdir() on is either closed or not
diff --git a/toke.c b/toke.c
index 90ee12b..28cc9e5 100644
--- a/toke.c
+++ b/toke.c
@@ -9701,14 +9701,8 @@ If the next character is in (or extends into) the next chunk of input
s = scan_str(start,!!PL_madskills,FALSE, (PL_in_eval & EVAL_RE_REPARSING),
TRUE /* look for escaped bracketed metas */, NULL);
- if (!s) {
- const char * const delimiter = skipspace(start);
- Perl_croak(aTHX_
- (const char *)
- (*delimiter == '?'
- ? "Search pattern not terminated or ternary operator parsed as search pattern"
- : "Search pattern not terminated" ));
- }
+ if (!s)
+ Perl_croak(aTHX_ "Search pattern not terminated");
pm = (PMOP*)newPMOP(type, 0);
if (PL_multi_open == '?') {
--
1.8.3.2
|
From @ilmari0003-Preserve-explicit-m-when-deparsing-m-PATTERN.patchFrom 224a1d70c6b2efa2cf421d82c72abecc72d87735 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Dagfinn=20Ilmari=20Manns=C3=A5ker?= <ilmari@ilmari.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 14:18:18 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Preserve explicit 'm' when deparsing m?PATTERN?
Bare ?PATTERN? is no longer allowed
---
lib/B/Deparse.pm | 2 +-
lib/B/Deparse.t | 3 +++
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/B/Deparse.pm b/lib/B/Deparse.pm
index 31ad998..d1f2385 100644
--- a/lib/B/Deparse.pm
+++ b/lib/B/Deparse.pm
@@ -4774,7 +4774,7 @@ sub matchop {
$flags = $matchwords{$flags} if $matchwords{$flags};
if ($pmflags & PMf_ONCE) { # only one kind of delimiter works here
$re =~ s/\?/\\?/g;
- $re = "?$re?";
+ $re = "m?$re?"; # explicit 'm' is required
} elsif ($quote) {
$re = single_delim($name, $delim, $re);
}
diff --git a/lib/B/Deparse.t b/lib/B/Deparse.t
index fd727c2..9b1ec41 100644
--- a/lib/B/Deparse.t
+++ b/lib/B/Deparse.t
@@ -1423,3 +1423,6 @@ print f();
####
# Elements of %# should not be confused with $#{ array }
() = ${#}{'foo'};
+####
+# 'm' must be preserved in m??
+m??;
--
1.8.3.2
|
From @rjbsOn Wed Jan 01 06:12:06 2014, ilmari wrote:
I am in favor of merging this in 5.21.0, and have marked this as a 5.22.0 blocker. -- |
From @ilmariRicardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> writes:
Attached are the patches from -- |
From @ilmari0001-Remove-support-for-PATTERN-without-explicit-m-operat.patchFrom c71198879c83025d888dde3f623e90a0d9fab3ec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Dagfinn=20Ilmari=20Manns=C3=A5ker?= <ilmari@ilmari.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 03:41:25 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Remove support for ?PATTERN? without explicit 'm'
operator
This has issued a deprecation warning since v5.14 (commit 725a61d70),
and precludes using ? as an operator after a unary operator that
defaults to $_, such as:
ref ? $_ : [$_]
---
pod/perldelta.pod | 8 ++++++
pod/perldiag.pod | 9 ------
t/lib/warnings/toke | 15 +++++-----
toke.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------------
4 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)
diff --git a/pod/perldelta.pod b/pod/perldelta.pod
index 21e59eb..1b0a651 100644
--- a/pod/perldelta.pod
+++ b/pod/perldelta.pod
@@ -117,6 +117,14 @@ be affected by locale; only C<$!> and C<$^E> stringification. The
'bytes' pragma causes the UTF-8 flag to not be set, just as in previous
Perl releases. This resolves [perl #112208].
+=head2 Support for C<?PATTERN?> without explicit operator has been removed
+
+Starting regular expressions matching only once directly with the
+question mark delimiter is now a syntax error, so that the question mark
+can be available for use in new operators. Write C<m?PATTERN?> instead,
+explicitly using the C<m> operator: the question mark delimiter still
+invokes match-once behaviour.
+
=head1 Deprecations
XXX Any deprecated features, syntax, modules etc. should be listed here.
diff --git a/pod/perldiag.pod b/pod/perldiag.pod
index 74f2e49..aa868f0 100644
--- a/pod/perldiag.pod
+++ b/pod/perldiag.pod
@@ -6379,15 +6379,6 @@ no way to tie the scalar itself when it held a typeglob, and no way to
untie a scalar that had had a typeglob assigned to it. If you see this
message, you must be using an older version.
-=item Use of ?PATTERN? without explicit operator is deprecated
-
-(D deprecated) You have written something like C<?\w?>, for a regular
-expression that matches only once. Starting this term directly with
-the question mark delimiter is now deprecated, so that the question mark
-will be available for use in new operators in the future. Write C<m?\w?>
-instead, explicitly using the C<m> operator: the question mark delimiter
-still invokes match-once behaviour.
-
=item Use of reference "%s" as array index
(W misc) You tried to use a reference as an array index; this probably
diff --git a/t/lib/warnings/toke b/t/lib/warnings/toke
index 92e94ad..7f2b730 100644
--- a/t/lib/warnings/toke
+++ b/t/lib/warnings/toke
@@ -1229,7 +1229,6 @@ $_ = $a = 1;
$a !=~ /1/;
$a !=~ m#1#;
$a !=~/1/;
-$a !=~ ?/?;
$a !=~ y/1//;
$a !=~ tr/1//;
$a !=~ s/1//;
@@ -1238,7 +1237,6 @@ no warnings "syntax";
$a !=~ /1/;
$a !=~ m#1#;
$a !=~/1/;
-$a !=~ ?/?;
$a !=~ y/1//;
$a !=~ tr/1//;
$a !=~ s/1//;
@@ -1249,7 +1247,6 @@ EXPECT
!=~ should be !~ at - line 7.
!=~ should be !~ at - line 8.
!=~ should be !~ at - line 9.
-!=~ should be !~ at - line 10.
########
# toke.c
our $foo :unique;
@@ -1351,13 +1348,17 @@ Non-octal character '8'. Resolved as "\o{123}" at - line 3.
########
# toke.c
use warnings;
-my $a = "foo";
-print $a =~ ?f? ? "yes\n" : "no\n" foreach 0..2;
+print ref ? "yes\n" : "no\n" foreach [], ''; # ? is unambiguosly an operator
EXPECT
-Use of ?PATTERN? without explicit operator is deprecated at - line 4.
yes
no
-no
+########
+# toke .c
+use warnings;
+$a =~ ?rand?; # ? is not a regex match
+EXPECT
+syntax error at - line 3, near "=~ ?"
+Execution of - aborted due to compilation errors.
########
# toke.c
use warnings;
diff --git a/toke.c b/toke.c
index ddb5cd4..8c9e63c 100644
--- a/toke.c
+++ b/toke.c
@@ -6763,62 +6763,43 @@ Perl_yylex(pTHX)
TERM('@');
case '/': /* may be division, defined-or, or pattern */
- if (PL_expect == XTERMORDORDOR && s[1] == '/') {
+ if ((PL_expect == XOPERATOR || PL_expect == XTERMORDORDOR) && s[1] == '/') {
if (!PL_lex_allbrackets && PL_lex_fakeeof >=
(s[2] == '=' ? LEX_FAKEEOF_ASSIGN : LEX_FAKEEOF_LOGIC))
TOKEN(0);
s += 2;
AOPERATOR(DORDOR);
}
- /* FALLTHROUGH */
- case '?': /* may either be conditional or pattern */
- if (PL_expect == XOPERATOR) {
- char tmp = *s++;
- if(tmp == '?') {
- if (!PL_lex_allbrackets &&
- PL_lex_fakeeof >= LEX_FAKEEOF_IFELSE) {
- s--;
- TOKEN(0);
- }
- PL_lex_allbrackets++;
- OPERATOR('?');
- }
- else {
- tmp = *s++;
- if(tmp == '/') {
- /* A // operator. */
- if (!PL_lex_allbrackets && PL_lex_fakeeof >=
- (*s == '=' ? LEX_FAKEEOF_ASSIGN :
- LEX_FAKEEOF_LOGIC)) {
- s -= 2;
- TOKEN(0);
- }
- AOPERATOR(DORDOR);
- }
- else {
- s--;
- if (*s == '=' && !PL_lex_allbrackets &&
- PL_lex_fakeeof >= LEX_FAKEEOF_ASSIGN) {
- s--;
- TOKEN(0);
- }
- Mop(OP_DIVIDE);
- }
- }
- }
- else {
- /* Disable warning on "study /blah/" */
- if (PL_oldoldbufptr == PL_last_uni
- && (*PL_last_uni != 's' || s - PL_last_uni < 5
- || memNE(PL_last_uni, "study", 5)
- || isWORDCHAR_lazy_if(PL_last_uni+5,UTF)
- ))
- check_uni();
- if (*s == '?')
- deprecate("?PATTERN? without explicit operator");
- s = scan_pat(s,OP_MATCH);
- TERM(sublex_start());
- }
+ else if (PL_expect == XOPERATOR) {
+ s++;
+ if (*s == '=' && !PL_lex_allbrackets &&
+ PL_lex_fakeeof >= LEX_FAKEEOF_ASSIGN) {
+ s--;
+ TOKEN(0);
+ }
+ Mop(OP_DIVIDE);
+ }
+ else {
+ /* Disable warning on "study /blah/" */
+ if (PL_oldoldbufptr == PL_last_uni
+ && (*PL_last_uni != 's' || s - PL_last_uni < 5
+ || memNE(PL_last_uni, "study", 5)
+ || isWORDCHAR_lazy_if(PL_last_uni+5,UTF)
+ ))
+ check_uni();
+ s = scan_pat(s,OP_MATCH);
+ TERM(sublex_start());
+ }
+
+ case '?': /* conditional */
+ s++;
+ if (!PL_lex_allbrackets &&
+ PL_lex_fakeeof >= LEX_FAKEEOF_IFELSE) {
+ s--;
+ TOKEN(0);
+ }
+ PL_lex_allbrackets++;
+ OPERATOR('?');
case '.':
if (PL_lex_formbrack && PL_lex_brackets == PL_lex_formbrack
--
2.0.0
|
From @ilmari0002-Remove-ternary-operator-parsed-as-search-pattern-war.patchFrom cbc31cc28be7cfe01663507c150b06798f9017e3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Dagfinn=20Ilmari=20Manns=C3=A5ker?= <ilmari@ilmari.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 14:06:51 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Remove "ternary operator parsed as search pattern"
warning
Since ?PATTERN? without 'm' is no longer supported, there is no
ambiguity any more.
---
pod/perldiag.pod | 10 ----------
toke.c | 10 ++--------
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/pod/perldiag.pod b/pod/perldiag.pod
index aa868f0..19aee77 100644
--- a/pod/perldiag.pod
+++ b/pod/perldiag.pod
@@ -4785,16 +4785,6 @@ construct, not just the empty search pattern. Therefore code written
in Perl 5.10.0 or later that uses the // as the I<defined-or> can be
misparsed by pre-5.10.0 Perls as a non-terminated search pattern.
-=item Search pattern not terminated or ternary operator parsed as search pattern
-
-(F) The lexer couldn't find the final delimiter of a C<?PATTERN?>
-construct.
-
-The question mark is also used as part of the ternary operator (as in
-C<foo ? 0 : 1>) leading to some ambiguous constructions being wrongly
-parsed. One way to disambiguate the parsing is to put parentheses around
-the conditional expression, i.e. C<(foo) ? 0 : 1>.
-
=item seekdir() attempted on invalid dirhandle %s
(W io) The dirhandle you are doing a seekdir() on is either closed or not
diff --git a/toke.c b/toke.c
index 8c9e63c..1a0fc36 100644
--- a/toke.c
+++ b/toke.c
@@ -9715,14 +9715,8 @@ S_scan_pat(pTHX_ char *start, I32 type)
s = scan_str(start,!!PL_madskills,FALSE, (PL_in_eval & EVAL_RE_REPARSING),
TRUE /* look for escaped bracketed metas */, NULL);
- if (!s) {
- const char * const delimiter = skipspace(start);
- Perl_croak(aTHX_
- (const char *)
- (*delimiter == '?'
- ? "Search pattern not terminated or ternary operator parsed as search pattern"
- : "Search pattern not terminated" ));
- }
+ if (!s)
+ Perl_croak(aTHX_ "Search pattern not terminated");
pm = (PMOP*)newPMOP(type, 0);
if (PL_multi_open == '?') {
--
2.0.0
|
From @ilmari0003-Preserve-explicit-m-when-deparsing-m-PATTERN.patchFrom 6a12688487ab24dc21b298bd03b331bbdba5a4f2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Dagfinn=20Ilmari=20Manns=C3=A5ker?= <ilmari@ilmari.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 14:18:18 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Preserve explicit 'm' when deparsing m?PATTERN?
Bare ?PATTERN? is no longer allowed
---
lib/B/Deparse.pm | 2 +-
lib/B/Deparse.t | 3 +++
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/B/Deparse.pm b/lib/B/Deparse.pm
index e7eb8cf..43a7c35 100644
--- a/lib/B/Deparse.pm
+++ b/lib/B/Deparse.pm
@@ -4789,7 +4789,7 @@ sub matchop {
$flags = $matchwords{$flags} if $matchwords{$flags};
if ($pmflags & PMf_ONCE) { # only one kind of delimiter works here
$re =~ s/\?/\\?/g;
- $re = "?$re?";
+ $re = "m?$re?"; # explicit 'm' is required
} elsif ($quote) {
$re = single_delim($name, $delim, $re);
}
diff --git a/lib/B/Deparse.t b/lib/B/Deparse.t
index 811f960..c804b70 100644
--- a/lib/B/Deparse.t
+++ b/lib/B/Deparse.t
@@ -1447,3 +1447,6 @@ package foo;
my @b;
$x = $b[-256] + $b[-255] + $b[-129] + $b[-128] + $b[-127] + $b[-1] + $b[0];
$x = $b[1] + $b[126] + $b[127] + $b[128] + $b[255] + $b[256];
+####
+# 'm' must be preserved in m??
+m??;
--
2.0.0
|
From @wolfsageOn Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
Once I'm caught up with deltas (getting there) I'll apply this, -- Matthew Horsfall (alh) |
From @rurbanAnd maybe you can fix the misleading headline in the bugreport. It reads "Bug #120912 for perl5: [PATCH] Remove support for ?PATTERN?" |
From @wolfsageOn Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Matthew Horsfall (alh)
For now, pushed as a smoke-me branch: http://perl5.git.perl.org/perl.git/shortlog/refs/heads/smoke-me/alh/remove-pattern-without-m Would any other committers mind taking a look and giving a +1 if Thanks, -- Matthew Horsfall (alh) |
From @jkeenanOn 6/12/14 7:22 PM, Matthew Horsfall (alh) wrote:
This correspondence didn't make it to the list: On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:51 PM, James E Keenan <jkeen@verizon.net> wrote:
+######## -- Matthew Horsfall (alh) |
From @wolfsageOn Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Matthew Horsfall (alh)
Smokes looked good. This has been merged into blead. -- Matthew Horsfall (alh) |
|
@wolfsage - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved' |
Migrated from rt.perl.org#120912 (status was 'resolved')
Searchable as RT120912$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: