I don't understand what you mean by "based on a single c<Q>"?
<joke>It is not in my realm of competence to know whether you understand or not.</joke>
Seriously, to quote from Synopsis 2:
In addition to q and qq, there is now the base form Q which does no interpolation unless explicitly modified to do so. So q is really short for Q:q and qq is short for Q:qq. In fact, all quote-like forms derive from Q with adverbs:
q// Q :q // qq// Q :qq // rx// Q :regex // s/// Q :subst /// tr/// Q :trans ///Adverbs such as :regex change the language to be parsed by switching to a different parser. This can completely change the interpretation of any subsequent adverbs as well as the quoted material itself.
And I'd just point out that the adverbs could still be used with "...{{ code }}:x ...".
Adverbs within the quoted material? A completely different thing: adverbs on (quote-like) operators define how the "language" in the quoted material is interpreted. What you're talking about would be a feature specific of one such language. (Speaking of which I suppose it will be possible to define your own parser switching adverbs, along with an appropriate parser.)
In reply to Re^6: what would you like to see in perl5.12?
by blazar
in thread what would you like to see in perl5.12?
by ysth
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |