On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 10:28:28 -0800, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 02:10:06PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote: > : I know everone has their reflexes tuned to type qw currently, but > : how many of you Gentle Readers would feel blighted if we turned it > : into q:w instead? > > Of course, if we wanted to really drive it into the ground, we could > turn qq// into q:q//, and then there's only one quoter. I'm sure if we > tried hard enough we could find someone this appeals to.
You don't even have to look very far. This seems like a decent idea to me (although I won't be sad if it doesn't happen). > We also haven't quite detangled the backslash options. Seems there are > four levels of support (using \/ to stand for any terminator character): > > 0) none # <<'' default > 1) \\ and \/ # q// default > 2) list # (nothing builtin) > 3) all # qq// default > > We need some way of specifying level 0 for a non-heredoc. We could turn > q// into that, I suppose. If we did, either we'd have to make '' the > same, or let it differ from q//, neither of which quite appeals to me, > but I might let myself be argued into one of them or the other. Actually, I'd like to see '' be a simple, completely raw quoting construct. But if we don't do that, we might be able to take a page out of C#'s book with @"" as the short form of the raw quoting construct. (Or something like that--I suspect C# picked @ because it's otherwise unused.) Actually, if we do something else with backticks, we can steal backticks for totally raw quoting... > I'm open to other ideas, though we must remind > ourselves that this is all very bike-sheddish. Oh, I vote for blue paint on that bike shed. -- Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perl and Parrot hacker There is no cabal.
