>>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> Please pardon my hyperbole. I don't loathe qw() so badly that I
LW> want to get rid of it. I merely want to put it in the same status
LW> as the other general quote operators that also have a non-general
LW> pair of standard quote characters. I would feel the same about
LW> qq// if there weren't a "".
larry,
we forgive you. but can you understand our concern? you did use very
strong language describing your negative feelings about qw without the
context you provided above. but now a question arises, why must there be
a non-q version of qw to be symmetrical with "/qq? i (and i sense many
others) feel that qw by itself is fine and stealing <> for it is not a
great use of precious funny chars. and if there is an extension as i
have proposed of other qX operators, then you won't be able to make them
all have funny char counterparts.
speaking of qX and qh in particular, i realized that supporting a way to
have => as a key or value is not worth the effort. just as with qw and
embedded white space, if you want complex data, use a normal list of
quoted strings. qw and qh are meant as shortcuts for common and simple
data sets. embedded white space and => as a string are not simple.
uri
--
Uri Guttman --------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------- http://www.sysarch.com
SYStems ARCHitecture and Stem Development ------ http://www.stemsystems.com
Learn Advanced Object Oriented Perl from Damian Conway - Boston, July 10-11
Class and Registration info: http://www.sysarch.com/perl/OOP_class.html
