I'm not sure that follows. "is the same" for "${s}" & "@{a}" doesn't have to translate into "has to be the same" for "%{h}" does it? Perl has plenty on non-orthoganalities already.
The "sigil{bareword}" syntax is specifically intended to disambiguate those cases where "sigil\w+" would be mis-interpreted
my $a = $year < 1999 ? 'pre-' :'post-'; print "In the context of ${a}millenium treatment of dates, $year becam +e...";
Are there any other cases that would need special treatment if "%h" was designated as being equivalent to "@{[ %h ]}" except when used with the format strings for (s)printf where it would be necessary to disambiguate it by using "%s %3d %{h}"? I can't think of any, can you?
In reply to Re: Re: Why doesn't % interpolate?
by Anonymous Monk
in thread Why doesn't % interpolate?
by diotalevi
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |