Larry Wall skribis 2004-11-26 9:33 (-0800): > but that doesn't give you protection from other kinds of interpolation. > I think we need two more adverbs that add the special features of qx and qw, > so that you could write that: q:x/echo $VAR/ where ordinary qx/$cmd/ > is short for qq:x/$cmd/ Likewise a qw/a b/ is short for q:w/a b/
With x and w as adverbs to q and qq, are qx and qw still worth keeping? It's only one character less, qx isn't used terribly often and qw will probably be written mostly as <<>> anyway. And perhaps qq:x is a bit too dangerous. Suppose someone meant to type qq:z[$foo] (where z is a defined adverb that does something useful to the return value, but has no side effects) and mistypes it as qq:x[$foo]. Instant hard-to-spot security danger. Juerd
