Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2022
Re: Pre-RFC: syntax for quote-words-arrayref
Thread Previous
From:
Elvin Aslanov
Date:
May 31, 2022 08:59
Subject:
Re: Pre-RFC: syntax for quote-words-arrayref
Message ID:
CAJ4KP=19nFcnFEim90ggqZio4NjLrc5ScjyckGCoBGMaBTxvuQ@mail.gmail.com
and interpolation will make this another common case go away:
[$variable, qw(one two three)]
+1 for comments
+1 for interpolation
On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 12:55 PM Elvin Aslanov <rwp.primary@gmail.com>
wrote:
> wow qz: is cool (comments, please), but why not to have both, qa as a
> shortcut for qz:d[
>
> ---
>
> general solution (ie. chainsaw) is always better, and new features like
> comments makes it to be more than a simple shortcut
> I had a lot of cases to quote my array and hashref values manually to have
> a separate comment on each line
>
> thanks for this
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 11:41 AM Neil Bowers <neilb@neilb.org> wrote:
>
>> In early March last year, I proposed[1] new syntax for "quote words
>> arrayref",
>> so that the following:
>>
>> $a = [qw/ a b c /];
>>
>> could be replaced with:
>>
>> $a = qa[ a b c ];
>>
>> (or maybe qwa[] or qaw[]). There are modules for this on CPAN - see my
>> original post for references[1].
>>
>> Roughly 36% of CPAN distributions use that idiom at least once.
>> This seemed to be well received. Until ...
>>
>> Rik said why not go all-in and spec out a new swiss army chainsaw quoter,
>> which can take options, so, using qz as an example:
>>
>> $a = qz:d[ a b c ]; # 'd' says delimiter determines type, arrayref
>> $h = qz:d{ ... }; # hashref
>> @a = qz:d( a b c ); # list, i.e. like qw( ... )
>>
>> But also:
>>
>> $a = qz:id[ a $b c ]; # i: interpolative
>> $a = qz:dx[
>> a # with a comment
>> b
>> c # another comment
>> ];
>> At least two people liked the comments and interpolation.
>>
>> I find myself wishing we had qa[] on a regular basis. I've never wished
>> for an equivalent for hashrefs, or for comments, or interpolation.
>> The => already gives us barewords on the left;
>> do people really want it for the values as well?
>> Enough people?
>>
>> The motivation for qa[] is that it's easier to read, and less to type.
>> The chainsaw undoes that saving, plus now we have two ways to quote
>> basic word lists.
>>
>> I couldn't see myself using it, and it's more confusing looking for the
>> casual reader/programmer than the syntax I was originally trying to
>> improve.
>> I want to make life easier for the 38% of CPAN authors, not the some
>> small number of very experienced Perl programmers.
>>
>> So really, I just want qa[], but if I can't get that past the pesky PSC,
>> then we could consider having the options of Rik's idea always turned on,
>> and we name it qs, or the smart quote operator[2]?
>>
>> $a = qs[ a b c ];
>> @a = qs( a b c );
>> %h = qs( a 1 b 2 c 3 );
>> $h = qs{ a 1 b 2 c 3 };
>>
>> You wouldn't be allowed to use anything other than [], (), and {} as
>> quote chars.
>>
>> We could make => a no-op, so you can at least make it look like a hash:
>>
>> $h = qs{ a => 1 b => 2 c => 3 };
>>
>> That might cause more confusion than benefit though, so probably not.
>>
>> It would interpolate other scalars, arrays, and hashes,
>> and would allow inline comments
>>
>> $w = qs[
>> zork # blah blah
>> xyzzy # plugh plugh
>> $favourite
>> @defaults
>> ];
>>
>> But, you say, what if people want the literal '@defaults' in there?
>> I think things that are different should look different,
>> and if you want that literally, then you should see '@defaults'.
>>
>> Really, I just want qa[]. I see evidence for the value of that.
>> I don't see evidence for qs, but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't
>> use it.
>>
>> Neil
>>
>> [1]
>> https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2021/03/msg259214.html
>> [2] We should never name anything "smart <thing>" again, of course.
>>
>>
>>
Thread Previous