> Rod Adams wrote: > Well, some form of words() exists... only spelled q:w//, with various > doublings of q and w available, some of which can be spelled <> or «», > though to be honest, I've lost track of how often the meanings of those > as quoters has changed. I suspect S02 or S03 would have that answer.
I must have misunderstood the original discussion that I linked to. When i saw words() I assumed words($string), and that it was a split by 'words' function. Sorry if that was my dumb error. I'm aware of q:w//, just didn't realize that's what I was seeing. > As for whether or not these actually exist, I'd like a bit more > consensus that they are actually needed as builtins. One side of me says > "Hey, we've got them all seperated into different namespaces now, so > we're not really getting polluted, so sure, let's add anything that's in > the least bit useful". The other side of me then starts to say > "bloated". I'm not sure where the balance on this lies, and will yield > to the will of those better at language design than myself. I agree, with my (probably wrong) impression that words() was a "split a string into words" function, I was thinking to myself bloat, but then I was also reminding myself that Perl's power as a natural language text processor has always been a premium feature (somehow even prior to full Unicode). Marcus Adair
