Hi,

Juerd wrote:
>  Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-06-15 19:14 (+0200):
> > as Larry mentioned in another thread that he wants a "different
> > notation for word splitting"
> > (http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language/21874),
> > how about that, similar to Haskell's "words" function:
>  
>  "words" is wrong for something that splits.

I took the name from Haskell's words, but I don't mind a name change.

>  It'd be right for something that matches. Let me demonstrate: 
>  
>     "(foo bar --baz blah-- quux)".words;
>  This should return <foo bar baz blah quux>, not <(foo bar --baz blah--
>  quux)>. So the name "words" isn't good for this.

right, it should return <foo bar baz blah quux> , with the additional
lvalue ability, so that the following (contrived) example works:

    my $str     = "(foo bar --baz blah-- quux)";
    $str.words .= map:{ substr $^word, 1 };
    say $str;
         # "(oo ar --az lah-- uux)";

> >     say join ",", @words;     # "hi,my,name,is,ingo";
>  
>  Following the logic that .words returns the words, the words are no
>  longer individual words when joined on comma instead of whitespace...

sorry, I don't quite get that.

I wanted to show the contents of @words, I did not want to split the
string into words and then concatenate the words again.

   # Maybe this...
   say " hi my  name is ingo ".words.map:{ "($_)" }
         # "(hi) (my) (name) (is) (ingo)"
   # ...is clearer?


--Ingo

-- 
Linux, the choice of a GNU | Black holes result when God divides the
generation on a dual AMD   | universe by zero.  
Athlon!                    |