* Father Chrysostomos via RT <perlbug-followup@perl.org> [2016-03-05 20:10]: > On Sat Mar 05 10:14:48 2016, perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org wrote: > > $x = "good job"; > > @y = qqw( $x hunter ); > > > > Is @y now ('good', 'job', 'hunter') or ('good job', 'hunter')? > > I would think the latter. > > I would have assumed the former. So I suppose it’s not obvious. BTW, > this does the former: > > $x = "good job"; > @y = < $x hunter >; I prefer the former. So much so, in fact, that I don’t see any point in the feature if it does the latter. Because that result is already easy to achieve in several ways – starting with this very conventional, very boring, nobody-will-ever-scratch-their-head-about-it approach: @y = split ' ', "$x hunter"; But a list in which variable values are interpolated yet atomic requires lots of syntactic ceremony using currently available means: @subdir = ( "$prefix/foo", "$prefix/bar", "$prefix/baz" ); Consider how much nicer that would be if you got to leave out all those quotes and separators: @subdir = qqw( $prefix/foo $prefix/bar $prefix/baz ); A qqw() that splits after interpolating would deprive us of that. So I think it must work that way or else there’s no point in bothering. While we’re at it – I would also prefer qqw() to allow comments, and/but allow backslashing whitespace and octothorpes to demote them from syntax to string content. Oh, and please – no qw()-style warnings about commas. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>Thread Previous | Thread Next