Bart Lateur wrote:
>
> >Currently, attempting to use objects in a string context
> >yields garbage:
> >
> > print "r is $r->func"; # "OBJ=HASH(0xef958)->func"
> > print "r is ", $r->func; # works, but clumsy
>
> Does this expand to regexes?
>
> /$foo->blah/
>
> To be consequent, it should.
Yes, it would. This is already currently done with $hash->{ref}'s and
$array->[ref]'s in qq// strings, so why not $obj->ref's?
> Why interpolate "$obj->method" and not "Class->method"?
This is a decent point worth considering.
I think another way to look at it which is more accurrate is that -> is
special in many cases already:
/$foo->{blah}/ # -> special
/$foo->[blah]/ # -> special
/$foo->blah/ # not special?
In fact, I would argue this last one not working is quite surprising.
Why not simply make -> always special, and have you \escape it if you
want to use it explicitly?
/$foo->blah/ # -> special, calls blah
/Class->blah/ # ditto
/$foo\->blah/ # escaped, not special
Besides, how often do you have to match "->" explicitly? I can't
remember ever having to. I think the line is more correctly drawn as "->
is always special". And you already have to use \-> for hashrefs and
arrayrefs, so this is nothing new.
> I don't like it, because so far, "-" nor ">" are metacharacters.
They still don't have to be individually, but taken together as -> they
are already special with hashrefs and arrayrefs, so extending this to
objects is quite natural.
> What I would like, is something equivalent to the "@{[...]}" hack
Brainstorming:
print "Hello !{$r->foo}";
print "Hello ![$r->foo]";
But I still think that making -> special in all situations is the more
consistent and flexible approach.
-Nate
