"Any contiguous whitespace (including comments) may be hidden from the parser
by prefixing it with <code>\</code>. ... using unspace lets you line up postfix
operators:"
%hash\ .{$key}
@array\ .[$ix]
$subref\.($arg)
What does the dotted form have to do with this? It just confuses the example.
%hash\ {$key}
@array\ [$ix]
$subref\ ($arg)
Then, explain that
"the dotted form can further help line up on arbitrary boundaries, since
the unspace requires at least two characters. If you need to shift the postfix
over by only one character, use a dot.
%hash\ {$key}
@array.[$ix]
$subref($arg)
If you wish to use dots on all the lines for consistency, you might end up with
something like:
%hash\ .{$key}
@array\ .[$ix]
$subref\.($arg)
As a special case to support this, a backslashed dot where a postfix is
expected is considered a degenerate form of unspace.
ORIGINAL TEXT CONTINUES
----
"Whitespace is not allowed before the parens, but there is a corresponding .()
operator, plus the ``unspace'' forms that allow you to insert optional
whitespace and comments between the backslash and the dot:"
The dotted form is not required to use unspace to insert optional whitespace.
State that this is the same as the deal with subscripts, and xref the thing I
opened this note with.
-----
MyType\ .::\ .{'$foo'} # same thing with unspaces
That is the same thing with unspaces AND dots.
MyType\ ::\ {'$foo'} # same thing with unspaces
could be added to the list, right?
------
You can also use the :key($value) form to quote the keys of option pairs. To
align values of option pairs, you may use the ``unspace'' postfix forms:
:longkey\ .($value)
:shortkey\ .<string>
:fookey\ .{ $^a <=> $^b }
Same thing - that is using unspace AND using dots.
:longkey\ ($value)
:shortkey\ <string>
:fookey\ { $^a <=> $^b }
------------------
I think that concludes my "unspace rant". That is, my confusion on reading the
S02 on unspace being linked with dots, I presume to be documentation relics and
I recall a much earlier discussion on "long-dot" which did link the concepts.
Proceeding on that assumption, I constructively noted the offending passages
and suggested changes in the text.
I hope that helps the effort, as well as my own understanding.
--John
