At 16:17 May 7, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 01:14:12PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>> I think Uri's qh() suggestion is the cleanest:
>
>Interesting train of thought, since one of the ideas was that qw() is
>ugly and has to go. (Larry's been saying this for nearly two years now,
>it's just that people sometimes don't listen. :) Let's keep it and add
>something similarly ugly to keep it company!
>
>--
>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<...>. :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Roode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Software Engineer, Myxa Corporation
