Re: String Literals, take 3

On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 09:45  AM, Drew Folta wrote:
> Hmm... should we mention the rough equivalence, or the technically 
> correct equivalence (which would be c<< "STRING".split(rx/\s+/) >>).  
> The answer to that question is the answer to this question:  what is 
> the scope of this document?  Is it for newbies (or p5 converts) or is 
> it a language reference (as I read mentioned somewhere else).

Both, of course!  It's a Language Reference that's detailed and 
complete, but still accessible to less-experienced endusers.   Not that 
that directly answers the question...  :-)

In general, thoroughness is key.  I'd say that if we _know_ a formal 
definition, put it in (either parenthetically, or as a sub-section 
called 'Formal Definition of [whatnot]') -- especially if we think it 
will make a difference for expert users, e.g. if it's explaining some 
nuance that the text description isn't able to describe.  We can always 
take it out later if we find it's annoying.

But always explain it the English way first and foremost, since newbies 
will be reading these sections too.  (We're trying to create a document 
that will _allow_ newbies to become language experts, if they feel so 
inclined.)

MikeL