Larry Wall wrote:
I'm still thinking about what «...» might mean, if anything. Bonus points for interpolative and/or word-splitty.
I'm perhaps not being entirely serious, but if you want something word-splitty and interpolative, how about this (which may cause unwanted physiological side effects, I disclaim all responsibility)
«word ws word ws number»
which would mean
<word> <ws> <word> <ws> <number>
but with less typing, depending on how many keystrokes it takes to produce « and » on your keyboard, and how much you put in it.
As far as interpolation goes, it would have to treat
«word ws $foo ws number»
As
<word> <ws> <$foo> <ws> <number>
assuming, that is, that <$foo> would take the value of $foo and use it as the name of the rule to match against, rather than taking the contents of $foo and using it as the rule. Or perhaps that's the better way round, if $foo is a regexp/rule object thingy (not quite sure how they work for us in Perl 6, can I say my $foo = rule { \d+ }; and expect something sane?). Perhaps it treats it as a name if it contains a string and a rule if it contains a rule.
Of course, it then begs the question about
<word ws $foo ws number>
if we're thinking of parallels with qw//-like constructs, which I certainly am. I'm not quite sure what that would do, as it collides slightly with the existing rule match syntax (which I quite like), and thus it may already have a meaning.
Perhaps I've gone completely barmy; I throw it open for your decision, good p6lers.
