Mark J. Reed wrote:
> No need to get snippy.
I thought the "I'm just fucking around" emotey would be enough.
> PHP may be the best argument out there for
> namespace control, but that doesnt mean it doesnt also have some nice
> bits. Im rather fond of its extended foreach syntax, for instance.
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
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 does
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 07:58:51AM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> I think the issue is that bare vars don't interpolate anymore, but
>> they still have sigils of their own, so adding to the default interp
>> syntax is too noisy: ${$var} is not really much improvement ov
No need to get snippy. PHP may be the best argument out there for
namespace control, but that doesnt mean it doesnt also have some nice
bits. Im rather fond of its extended foreach syntax, for instance.
(Though I disagree with the conflation of numeric and associative
arrays, a flaw shared by Jav
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 co
Patrick R. Michaud 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.
PHP has 8000 built in functions and it doesn't seem to cause issues there.
I'll not be t
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:35:44AM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:23:05AM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > Adriano answered #1 I think: $yaml = Q:!c"{ $key: 42 }";
>
> Er, I just looked over the spec again and realized that Q does
> absolutely no interpolation
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:35:44AM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:23:05AM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > Adriano answered #1 I think: $yaml = Q:!c"{ $key: 42 }";
>
> Er, I just looked over the spec again and realized that Q does
> absolutely no interpolation
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:23:05AM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> Adriano answered #1 I think: $yaml = Q:!c"{ $key: 42 }";
Er, I just looked over the spec again and realized that Q does
absolutely no interpolation, so it would be more like this:
$yaml = Q:qq:!c"{ $key: 42 }";
or perhap
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 07:58:51AM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> I think the issue is that bare vars don't interpolate anymore, but
> they still have sigils of their own, so adding to the default interp
> syntax is too noisy: ${$var} is not really much improvement over
> ${\(expr)}.
That's not qui
I think the issue is that bare vars don't interpolate anymore, but
they still have sigils of their own, so adding to the default interp
syntax is too noisy: ${$var} is not really much improvement over
${\(expr)}.
- Original message -
I am not quite sure of all the implications in t...
On 12/20/
On Dec 20, 2007 1:48 AM, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was reading an article about Perl 6, I forget which one, and it happened to
> mention that code can be interpolated inside double quoted strings. That's
> one thing, my concern is with the selected syntax.
>
> say "f
13 matches
Mail list logo
