perlop: Fixups #23286
perlop: Fixups #23286
Conversation
|
In re-reading the changes, I realized the old text wrongly used "binary" instead of "logical". Also that I had wrongly said |
It had not existed, until the 5.40 release. https://perldoc.perl.org/perl5400delta#New-%5E%5E-logical-xor-operator |
|
It turns out that there a bunch of infelicitous things in this pod; so I'm working on a more extensive fix |
|
I found a bunch of problems/improvements to be made to this pod I wonder if the smartmatch text needs updating. |
| X<operator, logical, or> X<or> | ||
| X<operator, logical, xor> X<operator, logical, exclusive or> X<xor> | ||
|
|
||
| There is no low precedence operator for defined-OR. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This feels slightly better at the end of this section, as an "addendum," in my opinion at least
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How would that read? I think the current situation is that it gets lost
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My feeling is that people would more likely go to this section of the documentation to find out about the or and xor operators, more than to search for a low precedence defined-or, but I have no objections to putting that sentence first either.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Grinnz, I agree that that is why they would come here; but I moved the sentence because I thought that point would be lost where it was, and it's not really a problem to have it moved.
Now you say you don't object to moving the sentence. What changes need to be made, then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Totally up to you, just giving my opinion on it
It should be updated since it is no longer considered experimental, and to describe the current state of the operator, which is that it is discouraged and unlikely to receive any further development. (may be suitable for a separate PR) |
Enhancements have been made in the last few releases to using these operators on UTF-8 locales; but this advice was not updated, so until this commit, said don't do that.
This document is supposed to be in decreasing operator precedence order. isa() is higher than the relational operators, so move it to there.
It is more customary to separate an 'if' from its paren.
Otherwise this dangling sentence gets lost after the main part of the section.
These paragraphs were separated from the main area where all but one of their subjects, 'cmp', were discussed. Move them, and provide a link to the outlier, and back to the main discussion.
This has the same precedence as other operators, so should not be in a separate section with the same heading level. Solve this by making it at a sublevel. This fits nicely with another sublevel section on smartmatch that follows immediately. There are now to subsections.
This gets things more rationally ordered
This detail for two sections was combined in a whole other section. This splits the detail into text appropriate for each section to which it applies, and moves it there.
The design of this pod is each section is for all operators of the same precedence. This was being violated
Fixes #18565