Austin Hastings writes:
> Larry Wall wrote:
> >Hmm. Gotta decided if S$foo.bar() is too ugly to live though...
> >
>
> It is.
Agreed.
> >I still kinda like underscore.
> >
> How about "scalar"? The fact that one person, one time, came up with a
> need to invoke it doesn't mean we have to race it up the huffman tree.
> P6 is winning the DWIM race most of the time contextually. Maybe [#] as
> a macro, if you like.
I personally have no problem with "scalar", now that the majority of the
cases where it was necessary can now be replaced with ~, +, or ?. It
can't, of course, when you're dealing with objects generically, and
that's when you use "scalar".
But ever since Larry decided to make "{ }" interpolate, getting rid of
$() on account of adding ~, +, and ?, I've wanted it back so it can go
back in strings. But I'm sure that this is just another one of his
decisions that I'm going to hate for a little while, and then finally
understand and like much better. It worked that way for %hashÂkeyÂ.
Luke
