Since i was mistaken about bare vars (scalars still interpolate), I
agree with Mr. Schwern: plain curlies are insufficiently distinct for
the interpolation syntax. Sigil+curlies would be better.
On 12/20/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 06:01:53PM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 2007 4:30 PM, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Just to add another perspective, PHP uses curlies inside of
> > double-quoted strings to indicate various forms of
> > interpolation, and it doesn't seem to cause major issues
> > there.
> >
> > But PHP's use of curlies is limited and context-sensitive; it's
> triggered
> > by the sequence {$ or ${. Bare curlies don't do anything.
>
> Ah yes, good point. I thus withdraw my PHP comment, and we're
> left with the examples in S02.
>
> It could be said that closure interpolation would be off by
> default, and enabled using the :c adverb or the C<qc> quoter
> that is already part of the spec. Then we would have
>
> "These { curlies } aren't interpolative."
> qc "These { 'curl' ~ 'ies' } are."
>
> I don't have a strong opinion one way or another -- I'm just
> trying to point out some alternatives and things the current
> spec already offers. But perhaps this is all a reminder as to
> why I try to stay out of the language design forum.
>
> Pm
>
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
