On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Damian Conway wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
> > Actually, I've been rethinking this whole mess since last week, and
> > am seriously considering cranking up the Ruby-o-meter here just a tad.
[snip]
> I can't say I'm keen on making {...} special in strings. I felt that the
> $(...) and @(...) were a much cleaner and more general solution. The
> prospect of backslashing every opening brace in every interpolated
> string is not one I relish.
Well, it seems that there's still a big confusion/indecision about the
default behaviour. But then an interesting point, and one that has already
been raised, is that it should be somehow possible to customize string
interpolation bu means of e.g. adverbs (fortunately we don't have "true"
literal strings but rather quote-like operators), attributes and god know
what else!
Now it should be stressed that the problem is twofold here: one aspect is
chosing the "best" default for some hopefully reasonable meaning of "best"
and the other one is providing a "slim" syntax for the alternate
behaviour(s); i.e. IMHO it would be unreasonable to require the users to
type something like
:with_method_interpolation
each time they want it. But maybe certain delimiters for qq may already
provide that... (or would that be a bad idea?)
As a related side note, is it possible to use multi-char delimiters in
Perl6? I mean, a la:
qq<<...>>;
Michele
--
But seriously this (Godwin's law) painting one's rhetorical
opponents as Nazis is an odious and verminous ploy normally used,
as here, to mask the intellectual bankruptcy of one's arguments.
- Robin Chapman in sci.math, "Die Petry, die: was Re: Die Cantor Die"
