Luke Palmer wrote:
I admit there's a certain interest to Larry's new idea. I've been
looking for more distinction between $, @, and % in Perl 6, since they
start to become mostly irrelavent. In the new proposal:
my @a = (1,2,3,4,5);
my $a = @a;
say "@a"; # @a
say "$a"; # 1 2 3 4 5 (perhaps?)
I think that's a bad kind of distinction, personally. It breaks an
obvious parallel.
But I'll admit that I'm much more a fan of $() and @() than I am of {}.
Form.pm would get very angry at this decision indeed.
Amen. Please don't steal unnecessary metacharacters in qq()
strings--although I still think we should keep it, @ causes a lot of
problems.
On the other hand, this is another step unifying strings and regexes. I
can say pretty confidently that that's a Good Thing.
The equivalent regex syntax isn't interpolating, even to the extent that
a bare $foo or @bar is, so this would be sort of a "false cognate"--IMHO
another reason not to have interpolating {}.
and what about "@a[1]('arg')[3]"?
That probably wouldn't.
Actually, I have to wonder why &foo('bar', 'baz') wasn't on Larry's
list. Is there a reason for that?
(On the other hand, what will happen with HTML entities like or
© if that *is* allowed?)
The New Way (tm) to do that would probably be sticking a role onto the
array object with which you're dealing:
my @foo does separator('//') = (1,2,3,4,5);
say "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"; # 1//2//3//4//5
I would think you'd use a property:
my @foo = (1,2,3,4,5) but separator('//');
Or maybe a trait:
my @foo is separated('//') = (1,2,3,4,5);
Or perhaps even a (gasp!) attribute:
my @foo = (1,2,3,4,5);
@foo.separator='//';
Roles are nice, but don't forget about the other mechanisms in Perl for
such things.
[Forgot to send it to the list. D'oh.]
[And then I sent it to the wrong one. D'oh * 2.]
--
Brent "Dax" Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perl and Parrot hacker
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
