On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:59:50PM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
: * Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-13 19:20]:
: > If we allow operator symbols in identifiers then the world
: > will divide into those people who look at Perl 6 programs
: > only through syntax-highlighting editors and don't know what
: > all the fuss is about naming a variable $e*trade since it is
: > all purple, and those people who give up on reading the other
: > people's programs.
: False dilemma. See Bob Rogers’ mail in this thread; some
: languages already allow all these symbols and the net effect
: is zero, because they take more work to type and people are
: lazy.
: That said, I really *really* like the idea of embedded dashes
: in identifiers (not least because underscores offend my amateur
: typophile self), but the idea of being able to embed other
: operator-ish symbols in identifiers leaves me utterly cold. I
: strongly doubt that if they are put in, it’ll cause the end of
: Perl 6, as you argue, but I also don’t care at all about whether
: they are allowed. I’m not going to use them anyway.

If one wants them, all you need to do is override the apostrophe rule
in the standard grammar, so I'm not going to go out of my way to add
maximum flexibility to the base grammar.  Currently the apostrophe
rule reads:

    token apostrophe {
        <[ ' \- ]>


Reply via email to