Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from May 2001
At 16:17 May 7, Simon Cozens wrote: >On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 01:14:12PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: >> 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> Well, one person's ugly is another person's joy forever. Regardless of the aesthetics of q//, qq//, qw//, et al, (and here docs too), they get the job done in a remarkably flexible, efficient way that is simply not possible with just about any other language out there. 9 times out of 100, qw saves a large number of keystrokes. (The other 1% of the time, you have to work around qw's inability to quote things with spaces). qq, q, and here-docs may be "ugly", but that's a judgment call. What they are not is "broken". Personally, I don't understand how using two alphabetic characters and a pair of delimiters, in order to save typing a whole mess of quotes and backslashes, can be construed as "ugly". :-) And, while I'm on my soapbox here, I don't get how <...> is a vast improvement over qw<...>. :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric J. Roode eric@myxa.com Senior Software Engineer, Myxa Corporation