Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 11:07:25AM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> > qw() has a strong "list" feeling. Moreover, perl 6 seems to agree :
> >
> > $ ./pugs -e 'say for qw(foo bar) xx 2'
> > foo
> > bar
> > foo
> > bar
>
> Is p6's xx supposed to have both roles of p5's x?
No; as Synopsis 03 says :
x splits into two operators: x (which concatenates repetitions of a
string to produce a single string), and xx (which creates a list of
repetitions of a list or scalar).
> It sure seems to work differently; I'm told that this:
>
> ./pugs -e 'sub foo { ("foo","bar") } say for foo() xx 2'
>
> produces
> foo
> bar
> foo
> bar
>
> also, while for perl5, we have:
>
> $ ./perl -le'sub foo { ("foo","bar") } print for foo() x 2'
> barbar
I don't see the point... My point was that qw() forces immediate list
context on x; not that it forces list context on function return. (i.e.
that qw(foo bar) is more like ("foo","bar") than like "foo","bar".)
