On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 12:12:39AM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Abigail <abig...@abigail.nl> [2005-10-16 23:55]:
> > > Can you throw in whitespace in those examples if you use the
> > > new %hash??key?? syntax instead?
> >
> > Question marks? No idea to which syntax you are referring.
> >
> > > (And if not, would it at least be possible to parse the
> > > examples umambiguously if it *were* allowed? If the answer to
> > > that question is yes, then I would lobby for dropping the {}
> > > hash lookup operator altogether and permitting whitespace
> > > with the ???? operator.)
> >
> > I've heard about the ??:: operator, replacing the ?: one. But
> > ????, no idea.
>
> In both cases I am talking about the %hash<<key>> syntax (per
> ASCII-transliterated version of the operator).
Ah, that one. I think that this week[*] they are going for:
%hash<key>
However, that's another subject for hate. Currenly, in Perl5, one can do:
$hash {EXPRESSION}
or:
$hash {bare_word}
as a short-cut for:
$hash {"bare_word"}
And perl is smart enough to figure out what you want. Not so in
Perl6. Perl6 will be a massive attempt to get all the DWIM from Perl
(the thing that makes Perl Perl), and make the programmer a slave of
the compiler. So, no more auto-quoting of hash keys. Instead, you got to
tell the compiler you have a bare word. If you use <> to index in a hash,
it's going to be a bare word. If you don't use a bare word, you use {}.
Fuckers. If I wanted Java, I know where to find it.
[*] Actually, that was last week. I've no idea what this weeks syntax
is going to be.
Abigail
pgptjUW2UukuJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
