Since i was mistaken about bare vars (scalars still interpolate), I agree with Mr. Schwern: plain curlies are insufficiently distinct for the interpolation syntax. Sigil+curlies would be better.
On 12/20/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 06:01:53PM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote: > > On Dec 20, 2007 4:30 PM, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Just to add another perspective, PHP uses curlies inside of > > double-quoted strings to indicate various forms of > > interpolation, and it doesn't seem to cause major issues > > there. > > > > But PHP's use of curlies is limited and context-sensitive; it's > triggered > > by the sequence {$ or ${. Bare curlies don't do anything. > > Ah yes, good point. I thus withdraw my PHP comment, and we're > left with the examples in S02. > > It could be said that closure interpolation would be off by > default, and enabled using the :c adverb or the C<qc> quoter > that is already part of the spec. Then we would have > > "These { curlies } aren't interpolative." > qc "These { 'curl' ~ 'ies' } are." > > I don't have a strong opinion one way or another -- I'm just > trying to point out some alternatives and things the current > spec already offers. But perhaps this is all a reminder as to > why I try to stay out of the language design forum. > > Pm > -- Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>