Hmm ... you are bringing some new aspects in, like mixing old and new syntax, instead of switching it globally for the whole file with a use feature right after use strict .

I didn't think to have a block scoped switching of syntax, don't think this would be wise.

(and I'm no expert of Perl6 variable syntax, I only know that plenty of stuff must change as a consequence)

Then it obvious now that @a and $a=\@a can't be automatically combined without braking some "traditions".

• Either $a has to be readonly, because the reference of @a is normally guaranteed to be immutable for it's lifespan.
• or @a should be an alias of @$a and always reflect the list form of wherever $a points.

I think the latter is what people rather accept.

Now if mixing with old code is the goal, I'd suggest a new declaration syntax for typed references by adding parens (additionally to untyped scalars)

my $arr[] = [42,43,44]; # "typed" array ref

#--- effects
print $arr[0];          # => 42         (same as $arr->[0])
print $arr;             # => ARRAY(0x8f4c214)
print "@arr";           # => "42 43 44" (same as "@$arr")
print "@arr[0,2]";      # => "41 43"    (slice)


#--- caught Errors (compile time):
my @arr;                ## @arr masks earlier declaration in same scop
+e
my $arr;                ## $arr masks earlier declaration in same scop
+e
my $arr{}               ## $arr{} masks earlier declaration in same sc
+ope
[download]

for instance the following is only a run time error at the moment which could be avoided otherwise at compile time.¹

my $a_ref = [1,2,3];    # old style
$a_ref->{x};            ## Not a HASH reference (run time)
[download]

Furthermore did I follow Damian's naming convention here to mark a reference with a trailing _ref , to clearly indicate references to avoid typos, (albeit his convention doesn't distinguish types, that's why I personally prepend a_ to identifiers of arefs)

BUT if we had such typed references we could delegate this marking (which is a poor man's form of typing! ) to the syntax highlighting of the IDE after declaration in a scope and lazily avoid adding all those markers.²

Nota bene, the old syntax of my ($scalar, @array) wouldn't be effected and could be easily mixed

The my ($arr[], $hash{}, $code() ) syntax is of course debatable... am open for better ideas.

What do you think?

footnotes

²) emacs already supports different styles ("cperl-...-faces") for arrays, hashes and barewords

UPDATE

the difference to the original suggestion is that it doesn't facilitate/change the use of the classical @a=(1,2,3) or $a=[1,2,3] but blends in with new syntax. (in other words easier for Perl cracks but less comfortable for beginners)

Since $scalars are all purpose variables it might be acceptable to still insist that references of untyped scalars are followed by a deref -> operator (?)

Cause if a $var could hold any reference, then the extra typing of -> could make this obvious like in $var->{x} vs $var->[1]

I didn't think to have a block scoped switching of syntax, don't think this would be wise.

That's block scoped the same way other pragmas are block scoped, if you want to use them on a whole file that's just fine, but if you want to be able to have a finer control over when the aliasing happens, (because you think the aliasing looks like you break the encapsulation on objects, or one of the two variables has magic that the other bypasses (once again, by magic I mostly mean ties) and you'd rather have a compile time than a run time bug) you should be able to.

or @a should be an alias of @$a and always reflect the list form of wherever $a points.

That's not possible, because this means that \@a would not have a constant value for the duration of the program. And you can't magic your way out of it because sometimes only the stringified ref is kept (as the key of a hash).

As for your declaration proposition, I'll say that offering a better safety net is always a good idea. I've been bitten before because I absentmindedly used the wrong brackets for my type, like $var->{3} when really I was thinking about an array the whole time, but for some reason I confused the two, or my finger just went on typing the brackets they were told to use the X previous time in a row. So ++ for compile time types :).

> That's not possible, because this means that \@a would not have a constant value for the duration of the program. 

With a tied array it should be feasable to always access @$ref. ( well quite slow but good enough for a showcase.)

> And you can't magic your way out of it 

These variables are scoped and easy to identify (at least lexicals) you can just replace every @arr with @$are at compile time or in a macro substitution.

>  because sometimes only the stringified ref is kept (as the key of a hash).

I doubt that's documented or guaranteed behavior.

At least with stash variables you are free to change the reference by aliasing.

Just try *a=\@b; and see what \@a returns. :)

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
Je suis Charlie!}

update

furthermore this allows changing the underlying reference.

use 5.22.0;
use feature qw/say refaliasing/;
no warnings "experimental::refaliasing";

my @a=(1,2,3);
my @b=(3,2,1);

say \@a;

\@a=\@b;

say \@a;
[download]

> So ++ for compile time types :).

And do you think this would improve the usability of Perl for beginners? (I do)

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
Je suis Charlie!}