Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2016
* 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