On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 08:14:14PM -0800, Andrew Hewus Fresh wrote:
> One tiny style suggestion here, I might have done:
> 
> sub do($self, $s, @except) {
>     ...;
>     for (@except) {
>         next unless defined;
>         next unless $k eq $_;
>         $v = undef;
>         last;
>     }
>     ...;
> }
> 

I would rather not. This might lead people to assume you can use it
for lots of variables, where it would be inefficient.

Also, I don't see a use case for it at all. The fact we've lived for
so long without needing without tells something about the fringe this is.

Also, what's wrong with "without" as the variable name ?...

If you really want to do it for several variables, you would have
to clone the original subst object and remove the keys from the
hash. But then you run into the nastiness that cloning a subst is
not that easy as it could be the base class for ReverseSubst...
which means asking the object to clone itself (hence another method)
and then deleting keys for the hash (for which we already have a
method).

I figured it was too much complication for a fairly simple case.

-- 
	Marc