On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 07:31:09PM +0100, Juerd wrote: : Larry Wall skribis 2004-11-26 9:33 (-0800): : > but that doesn't give you protection from other kinds of interpolation. : > I think we need two more adverbs that add the special features of qx and qw, : > so that you could write that: q:x/echo $VAR/ where ordinary qx/$cmd/ : > is short for qq:x/$cmd/ Likewise a qw/a b/ is short for q:w/a b/ : : With x and w as adverbs to q and qq, are qx and qw still worth keeping? : It's only one character less, qx isn't used terribly often and qw will : probably be written mostly as <<>> anyway.
I might be happy to remove them, though people will write q:x instead of qq:x and wonder why it doesn't interpolate. What I think is fun is qq:x:w, which presumably runs the command and then splits the result into words. I know everone has their reflexes tuned to type qw currently, but how many of you Gentle Readers would feel blighted if we turned it into q:w instead? : And perhaps qq:x is a bit too dangerous. Suppose someone meant to type : qq:z[$foo] (where z is a defined adverb that does something useful to : the return value, but has no side effects) and mistypes it as : qq:x[$foo]. Instant hard-to-spot security danger. Seems rather unlikely. And presumably tainting should catch it if it's really a security issue. Larry
