* Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/07/2001 13:17]:
>
> Bother. Well, you'd have to quote it, but then you wouldn't really have
> a hash key called => that often, either.
Yeah, but you couldn't make use of a way to assign alternate values without
some specialized syntax. I don't think this:
%h = <foo bar baz(2)>;
Is any "cleaner" than this:
%h = qh(foo bar baz => 2);
It's just different. And in fact will require much more explanation than
the simple "qw is 'quote words', qh is 'quote hash'. You can use any
delimiters you want."
> > 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]>
Yeah, that's too bad. ;-) But I still don't think that we're gaining
anything by introducing a non-extensible, special-cased op into the
language. Isn't this just the type of thing we're trying to get rid of?
I'm not against a "cleaner" way to do qw() in principle, but I
definitely think <> is not it for a lot of reasons (glob, readline,
can't use =>, iterators, ...)
-Nate
