Hi all,
I'm back with more quoting construct madness.
First, context of hash slices:
Hash slices with {} notation are trivially either scalars or lists:
$h{'foo'} = want(); # Scalar
$h{'foo','bar'} = want(); # List
With <> notation the same thing happens:
$h<foo> = want(); # Scalar
$h<foo bar> = want(); # List
But when you start interpolating, you get into a big mess:
h<\qq[$interpolated]> = want(); # ???
h<<$foo>> = want(); # ???
Secondly, quotation adverbs (S02) that take arguments could theoretically be
variables that only exist during runtime
q:c(rand) (Do we interpolate {this}?)
(It would be even worse if "this" had a closing paren in it)
That's complete madness, but with regexps it makes complete sense - sometimes
rx:nth($n)/something/;
The general problem is that some adverbs affect parsing, while others take
place only during runtime - and they all have the same syntax. I'll think a
bit more myself about how to solve this, but I thought I'd throw it out there
as well.
--
-Roie
v2sw6+7CPhw5ln5pr4/6$ck2ma8+9u7/8LSw2l6Fi2e2+8t4TNDSb8/4Aen4+7g5Za22p7/8
[ http://www.hackerkey.com ]
