* Abigail <abigail@abigail.be> [2016-03-23 18:50]: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 07:00:53PM -0500, Ricardo Signes wrote: > > * 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. > > Do we have to make a choice? If someone is going through the trouble > of implementing qqw() (or something similar named), why not introduce > two constructs, one for each option? Then the user can use whatever > he/she needs. IMO the other option already has an existing construct: split ' ', qq( ... ) Do you consider that not good enough for some reason? Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>Thread Previous | Thread Next