On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 04:33:23PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote: : >From S02: : : -- : : Perl 6 includes a system of B<sigils> to mark the fundamental : structural type of a variable: : : $ scalar (object) : @ ordered array : % unordered hash (associative array) : & code/rule/token/regex : :: package/module/class/role/subset/enum/type/grammar : @@ multislice view of @ : : C<$x> may be bound to any object, including any object that can be : bound to any other sigil. : : C<@x> may be ... bound to any object that does the C<Positional> role : : C<%x> may be bound to any object that does the C<Associative> role : : C<&x> may be bound to any object that does the C<Callable> role : : C<::x> may be bound to any object that does the C<Abstract> role : : -- : : IIRC, could the above section about C<$x> be considered equivalent to : saying that C<$x> may be bound to any object that does the C<Object> : role? : : Also, a possible change in terminology: : : s/C<Positional>/C<< sigil:<@> >>/ : s/C<Associative>/C<< sigil:<%> >>/ : s/C<Callable>/C<< sigil:<&> >>/ : s/C<Abstract>/C<< sigil:<::> >>/ : s/C<Object>/C<< sigil:<$> >>/ if every object does the Object role : : This would free up more role names for programmer use. It would also : imply that one could create a new sigil by defining a role named : 'sigil:<...>', with the behavior of the sigil being established by the : definition of the role. Or does this make it too easy to create new : sigils?
Well, it's already too easy, but the problem I have with it is not that. My problem is that sigil:<@> is the name of a very specific syntactic notion, while Positional is the name of a very generic semantic notion. I don't think those levels should be confused. Larry
