Uri Guttman writes:
> LW> : so method calls would need the $() or @() wrappers as do all expressions
> LW> : beyond simple scalar value lookup. that means $foo, @foo[0], $foo[0],
> LW> : %foo{'bar'} and $foo{'bar'} all interpolate and only their variants
> LW> : (longer index/key expressions) do as well.
>
> LW> I'm inclining more towards the "only interpolate things that end with
> LW> brackets or parens" rule. That would allow $foo.bar() to interpolate,
> LW> but not $foo.bar.
>
> and i assume $foo is still fine even though it doesn't end in a bracket?
> and also i assume you mean any of }, ] or )?
>
> how would you put in the literal string $foo.bar()? escaping the . or
> the ( ?
Probably the $.
> LW> Unlike in Perl 5, Perl 6's references will (by default) autodereference
> LW> to their representation in string context. (Not to be confused with
> LW> scalar context, where they remain references.) You have to do something
> LW> explicit to get the SCALAR(0xdeadbeef) form of output. I don't know what
> LW> that syntax is yet.
>
> that can be some longer func name as it is rarely needed IMO. mostly
> debugging and some odd places that in p5 used it for a unique key or
> class name.
Yeah, I use that unique key all the time. Perhaps that's what .id looks
like? I'd actually like it to be a short method name.
> LW> I probably shouldn't be thinking about that anyway. Can you all tell
> LW> I'm putting off writing my OSCON talk? :-)
>
> you too?! i would have never take you for a procrastinator! :)
> i just wrote my main draft of my slides the other day.
Haha, I'm procrastinating it as we speak. (But I'm calling it "taking a
break").
> why put off something today when you can put it off tomorrow?
Reminds me of Ellen Degenerous: "Procrastinate now! Don't put it off!"
Luke
