Eric Roode writes:
: >And the fact is, I've always loathed qw(), despite the fact that I
: >invented it myself. :-)
: > -- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:
:
: Well, one person's ugly is another person's joy forever.
:
: Regardless of the aesthetics of q//, qq//, qw//, et al, (and here
: docs too), they get the job done in a remarkably flexible, efficient
: way that is simply not possible with just about any other language
: out there.
:
: 9 times out of 100, qw saves a large number of keystrokes. (The
: other 1% of the time, you have to work around qw's inability to
: quote things with spaces).
:
: qq, q, and here-docs may be "ugly", but that's a judgment call. What
: they are not is "broken".
:
: Personally, I don't understand how using two alphabetic characters
: and a pair of delimiters, in order to save typing a whole mess of
: quotes and backslashes, can be construed as "ugly". :-)
:
: And, while I'm on my soapbox here, I don't get how <...> is a vast
: improvement over qw<...>. :-)
Please pardon my hyperbole. I don't loathe qw() so badly that I want
to get rid of it. I merely want to put it in the same status as the
other general quote operators that also have a non-general pair of
standard quote characters. I would feel the same about qq// if there
weren't a "".
Larry
