[% setvar title TITLE %]
|Note: these documents may be out of date. Do not use as reference!|
To see what is currently happening visit http://www.perl6.org/
Allow Varibles in tr///
Maintainer: Richard Proctor <email@example.com> Date: 27 Aug 2000 Last Modified: 22 Sep 2000 Mailing List: firstname.lastname@example.org Number: 165 Version: 3 Status: Frozen
Allow variables in a tr///. At present the only way to do a tr/$foo/$bar/ is to wrap it up in an eval. I dont like using evals for this sort of thing.
Suggested syntax: tr/$foo/$bar/e
With a /e, tr will expand both the LHS and RHS of the translate function. Either or both could be variables. I am suggesting /e as it is sort of like /e for s///e.
These words from MJD:
The way tr/// works is that a 256-byte table is constructed at compile time that say for each input character what output character is produced. Then when it's time to apply the tr/// to a string, Perl iterates over the string one character at a time, looks up each character in the table, and replaces it with the corresponding character from the table.
With tr///e, you would have to generate the table at run-time.
This would suggest that you want the same sorts of optimizations that Perl applies when it encounters a regex that contains variables:
1. Perl should examine the strings to see if they have changed since the last time it executed the code 2. It should rebuild the tables only if the strings changed 3. There should be a /o modifier that promises Perl that the variables will never change.
The implementation could be analogous to the way m/.../o is implemented, with two separate op nodes: One that tells Perl 'construct the tables' and one that tells Perl 'transform the string'. The 'construct the tables' node would remove itself from the op tree if it saw that the tr//o modifier was used.
Hugo wrote: > Definitely. Should be easy to implement. There is a potential for > confusion, since it makes the tr/ lists look even more like > m/ and s/ patterns, but I think it can only be less confusion than > the current state of affairs. It is tempting to make it the default, > and have a flag to turn it off (or just backwhack the dagnabbed > dollar), and auto-translation of existing scripts would be pretty > easy, except that it would presumably fail exactly where people > are using the current workaround, by way of eval. >
Comments by me:
Therefore tr///o might be a good idea as well.
If Hugo's idea of making this the normal behaviour, the problem of existing evals is avoided by p52p6 changing the eval to a perl5_eval which acts accordingly. (One of MJD's ideas).
Hugo: Should be easy to implement.
Me: Should not be too complicated, this is just a case of doing existing things in a different context.
V2 - Added words from MJD and Hugo - This hopefully in a pre freeze state.
V3 - re issued due to an error in posting V2 and now frozen