On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 12:27:12PM -0700, Scott Walters wrote: > * Rather than eliciting public comment on %hash`foo (and indeed %hash<<foo>>) > the proposal is being rejected out of hand (incidentally, the mantra of the Java > community Process seems to be "you don't need X, you've got Y", and it took > .Net before they woke up and realized that maybe they should consider their > community in the community process - after ignoring a universal call for > generics for over 5 years it's little wonder .Net ate their cake)
Is that: X = `command args` Y = qx/command args/ or: X = %hash'foo Y = %hash<<foo>> I'm not sure which camp you consider to be the pot and which is the kettle. Anyhow, both are grey, not black. "X is useful." and "Y is an alternative to X." lead to the questions like "How useful?" and "Is there value in having both?". However, the first is an argument to remove a feature that is already present and the second is arguing to add a new feature, so a case can be made for requiring different standards of acceptance for the argument in the two cases. (For the record, I find `command` extremely useful, especially in short scripts, which is where huffman encoding is most valuable. I've never used qx// at all. Nor, in shells, have I ever used $(...) in place of `...`. My fingers got trained long ago and I don't see sufficient benefit to go to the bother of retraining them. I can backwack embedded `'s, and while pulling nested command invokations out into a separate variable assignment is necessary with `` syntax, it is much easier to read even when $( ) syntax makes embedding possible.) --
