David Green writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) wrote:
>
> > * The :w splitting happens after interpolation. So
> > « foo $bar @baz »
> > can end up with lots of words, while
> > « foo "$bar" "@baz" »
> > is guaranteed to end up with three "words".
>
> Now I'm a bit lost. I would've expected the quotes (") inside a
> different kind of quote («) to be taken literally (just as in 'foo
> "$bar" "@baz"' or qw/foo "$bar" "@baz"/).
> I'm not even sure what those double-quotation marks are doing --
> preventing $bar from being interpolated as a variable, or preventing
> the interpolated value from being white-split?
Look back at how Larry defined the guillemets:
> > * That frees up «...» for Something Else.
> >
> > * That something else is the requested variant of qw// that
> > allows interpolation and quoting of arguments in a shell-like
> > manner.
So the double-quotes in there are "shell-like", though I guess if you
don't have a Unix background that doesn't mean much to you. (Post again
if that's the case -- I have to leave for work now, but I'm sure
somebody here will be able to explain.)
Smylers
