Rod Adams skribis 2004-11-29 1:56 (-0600):
> Are they really common enough to merit a "two char, absolutely no
> whitespace after it" lexical? Especially one that looks a lot like the
> left bitshift operator, as well as an ASCII version of a Unicode quoting
> and splitting character?
> What if instead, we add a different adverb to q// and qq//? something
> like :h. That way people can mix and match all the quoting option they
> want, and we remove some annoying requirements about when you can and
> cannot have /<<\s+/ in your code.
I think this is a very good idea. I too dislike the whitespace
disambiguation thing for this, and was going to propose using unary %
instead of <<. But this is even better, IMO.
> Since < and > are now full class quote-like thingies in P6REs, much to
> the chagrin of those of us who parse html on a regular basis, using them
> as such in the rest of P6 makes sense as well.
It would be great if <''> in a rule would be just ''.
rule NotationDecl {
<'<!NOTATION'> <S> <Name> <S> [<ExternalID> | <PublicID>] <S>? <'>'>
}
would then just be
rule NotationDecl {
'<!NOTATION' <S> <Name> <S> [<ExternalID> | <PublicID>] <S>? '>'
}
Which I find much easier to read. (Frankly, <'>'> is just too hard to
type and be parsed by a human.) It also makes all other balanced
delimiter matching rules more readable:
rx/ \[ \w+ \] /
rx/ <'['> \w+ <']'> /
rx/ '[' \w+ ']' /
Juerd
