Alexis Sukrieh <sukria@sukria.net> writes:
On 31/05/2010 20:18, Marc Chantreux wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 10:20:48PM +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
r('/stuff/(.*+)) qr/\/stuff\/(.*+)/
Er, isn't 'r' it literally identical to 'qr(/stuff/(.*+))' in this case?
yes it is! plus: you don't have to know what r() do: qr is just a perl operator.
So I would vote for applying your patch, but without replacing r('') which has a good reason to live, I think.
The only really good reason I can see, right now, is backward compatibility,
+1
After reading the whole thread, I must say this makes sense. Now I see r() as something akward and unlogical. We can say that any call to r() will now trigger a warning like: "the r() method is deprectated, use qr// instead".
If I may, suggesting 'qr()' or 'qr{}' is probably nicer, not least because this will also work with them: qr{/one/{[-0-9a-f]{24}}/frob} Nesting brackets, as long as they are balanced, is nice, and is one of the attractions of the 'r' method to me. Daniel -- ✣ Daniel Pittman ✉ daniel@rimspace.net ☎ +61 401 155 707 ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons