On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> Peter Haworth wrote:
> >On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 04:05:05 -0500, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> >>>A string inside a \qq[] construct acts exactly as if it were an
> >>>interpolated string. Note that any end-brackets, "]", must be escaped
> >>>within the the \qq[] construct so that the parser can read it correctly.
> >>>
> >>Note that an end-bracket, ], must be escaped within the \qq[] construct.
> >>This allows the parser to correctly parse the construct.
> >
> >Don't embedded qq[] strings obey the normal qq[] rules? That is, will
> >all brackets need escaping, or just unbalanced brackets? I'd hope for
> >the latter.
>
> With all of the new crazy quoting shenanagains, I'm not sure that the
> "balenced brackets are fine" rule will still be possible; and thus end
> delimeters will always need to be escaped. For instance, imagine
> what a nightmare this would be to parse:
>
> $var = qq[blah [\q[blah [\qq[%hash{qq[[hi]]}]]]] blah];
>
> Sure, anyone who writes something like this deserves to be shot;
> however, if the "balanced brackets are ok" rule still stands, the
> above code would be legal. (And I really, really, really don't
> want the above code to be legal ;)
Well, just don't do it then. With or without balanced brackets, the
obfuscating programmer can do the above; he just needs more or less
backslashes. '\qq[]' is the real source of evil here.
Actually the apocalypse says:
> RFC 226: Selective Interpolation in Single Quotish Context.
>
> This proposal has much going for it, but there are also difficulties,
> and I've come close to rejecting it outright simply because the
> single-quoting policy of Perl 5 has been successful.
Maybe if we pushed Larry a bit, he could reject it after all?
Personally I like 'not interpolated'_"interpolated"_'not interpolated'
much better than 'not interpolated\qq[interpolated]not interpolated'.
~ John Williams
