Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from May 2001
* Simon Cozens <simon@netthink.co.uk> [05/07/2001 13:17]: > > Bother. Well, you'd have to quote it, but then you wouldn't really have > a hash key called => that often, either. Yeah, but you couldn't make use of a way to assign alternate values without some specialized syntax. I don't think this: %h = <foo bar baz(2)>; Is any "cleaner" than this: %h = qh(foo bar baz => 2); It's just different. And in fact will require much more explanation than the simple "qw is 'quote words', qh is 'quote hash'. You can use any delimiters you want." > > I think Uri's qh() suggestion is the cleanest: > > Interesting train of thought, since one of the ideas was that qw() is > ugly and has to go. (Larry's been saying this for nearly two years now, > it's just that people sometimes don't listen. :) Let's keep it and add > something similarly ugly to keep it company! > > -- > And the fact is, I've always loathed qw(), despite the fact that I > invented it myself. :-) > -- Larry Wall in <199911021845.KAA01167@kiev.wall.org> Yeah, that's too bad. ;-) But I still don't think that we're gaining anything by introducing a non-extensible, special-cased op into the language. Isn't this just the type of thing we're trying to get rid of? I'm not against a "cleaner" way to do qw() in principle, but I definitely think <> is not it for a lot of reasons (glob, readline, can't use =>, iterators, ...) -Nate