* Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@gmx.de> [2016-03-05T16:59:38] > > 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 prefer the [latter]. Me, too. Other cases to consider: @x = qqw( abc @def ghi ); ...which would need to have three elements, to match this: @x = qqw( x:abc x:@def x:ghi ); It would be bizarre for the second example to only have x: on the first element from @def. If @def is empty, it ought to become "", similarly. Someone will probably have to stop and think about: @x = qqw( abc $def->{ ... ... ... } ghi ); ...because of the spaces in the expr in the second element. I think this is okay. > 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. Agreed. > Oh, and please – no qw()-style warnings about commas. I have no feelings on this. -- rjbsThread Previous | Thread Next