On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:15:30PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >>>>> "BL" == Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> BL> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 17:57:07 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >> how often will you need to interpolate a hash?
>
> BL> A whole hash: quite rarely. A hash item: a LOT. Don't forget that
> BL> $foo{BAR} will now become %foo{BAR}
>
> good point. $() can still wrap that but then there has to be a balance
> between printf strings and double quoters. how about this wacky idea:
>
> make a new type of string where %foo{bar} is not interpolated by
> default. maybe something in the q/qq family could be added like qn for
> no hash interpolation. you can use $() to still force it if you need to
> in printf formats.
>
> just trying out various ideas,
I'd think it would be much better that '%' followed by a word *not*
followed by a { isn't interpolated. Granted, you cannot do interpolation
of hashes (well, one could always write "@{[%hash]}", just like in perl5,
and there's little change of clashing with printf formats. There's only
a clash if a format specifier is followed by a brace.
But the way perl6 is going, I doubt we'll see this kind of DWIM; perl6
is going more in the way of a bondage and discipline language.
Abigail
