On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 10:28:28 -0800, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 02:10:06PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: I know everone has their reflexes tuned to type qw currently, but
: how many of you Gentle Readers would feel blighted if we turned it
: into q:w instead?
Of
James Mastros wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 07:32:58AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: ah, I forget, how could I do qx'echo $VAR' in Perl6? something like
: qx:noparse 'echo $VAR' ?
I think we need two more adverbs that add the special features of qx
and qw,
so that you
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 08:21:06PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
James Mastros skribis 2004-11-27 11:36 (+0100):
Much more clear, saves ` for other things
I like the idea. But as a earlier thread showed, people find backticks
ugly. Strangely enough, only when used for something other than
readpipe.
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 12:24:08PM -0500, John Macdonald wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 08:21:06PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
James Mastros skribis 2004-11-27 11:36 (+0100):
Much more clear, saves ` for other things
I like the idea. But as a earlier thread showed, people find backticks
ugly.
John Macdonald skribis 2004-11-28 12:24 (-0500):
Doesn't that cause ambiguity between:
%hash{'foo'}{'bar'}{$foo}[0]{$bar}
and
%hash{'foo'}{'bar'}{$foo}{0}{$bar}
^ ^ hash instead of subscript
Not really. $hashref[] can't be used and $arrayref{}
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 07:32:58AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
I notice that in Perl6 thoose funny « and » could be much more common
than other paired brackets. And some people likes how they look, but
nobody likes fact that there's no (and won't!) be a consistent way to type
them in
