On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 09:22:08PM +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > * 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( $x hunter ); > > > > > > > > > > > > Is @y now ('good', 'job', 'hunter') or ('good job', 'hunter')? > > > > > > I would think the latter. > > > > > > > > > I prefer the [latter]. > > > > > > Me, too. > > > > Do we have to make a choice? If someone is going through the trouble > > of implementing qqw() (or something similar named), why not introduce > > two constructs, one for each option? Then the user can use whatever > > he/she needs. > > IMO the other option already has an existing construct: > > split ' ', qq( ... ) > > Do you consider that not good enough for some reason? First of all, I don't have a strong need for qqw, regardless of what meaning is given to it. But I can see some value in either of the discussed meanings. I just want to point out there's also the possibility to add more than one construct. As for the "but here's a way to do it" argument, I don't find that a very convincing argument. qw can be expressed as split ' ', q (...) but does that mean qw() is a waste? Also, the variant you favour can also be easily expressed otherwise: @y = ($x, "hunter"); so that would argue to not implement qqw at all. Nor 99% of the other features which are being proposed. AbigailThread Previous | Thread Next