On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 07:32:58AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
I notice that in Perl6 thoose funny « and » could be much more common than other paired brackets. And some people likes how they look, but nobody likes fact that there's no (and won't!) be a consistent way to type them in different applications, wether it's hard or easy.
But to swap «» with [] or {} could be real shock for major part of people..
We also have another ascii pair, < and > . maybe they could be better than « and » ?:) i'm not that farseeing, but isn't problem of distinguishing < as a bracket and < as an comparison operator no harder than distinguishing << as bracket and as part of heredoc?..
Speaking of heredocs.....
Are they really common enough to merit a "two char, absolutely no whitespace after it" lexical? Especially one that looks a lot like the left bitshift operator, as well as an ASCII version of a Unicode quoting and splitting character?
What if instead, we add a different adverb to q// and qq//? something like :h. That way people can mix and match all the quoting option they want, and we remove some annoying requirements about when you can and cannot have /<<\s+/ in your code.
P5:
print <<"END", " done.\n"; line 1 line 2 END
P6:
say qq:h/END/, "done."; line 1 line 2 END
As for the topic being discussed,
Since < and > are now full class quote-like thingies in P6REs, much to the chagrin of those of us who parse html on a regular basis, using them as such in the rest of P6 makes sense as well. Parsing should not be hindered since one would occur in operator context, and the other in expression context.
-- Rod Adams
