So q is really short for Q:q and qq is short for Q:qq.
Oh. So all that flowery prose,
Oh no! Perl 6's new quoting mechanism, with everything based on a single C<Q> and a bunch of adverbs is just breathtaking: it is at same time simple, intuitive and powerful as familiar constructs like C<q> and C<qq> will remain very much the same as in Perl 5 and a terrible amount of more flexibility will be available at the tiny expense of appending a semicolon and a few letters.
is just breathless hot air admiration, but completely orthogonal to the point I was making.
Ie. I was discussing the definition of the "language" that can appear inside one of those long-winded substitutes for the simple quote-like operators that we already have. (And that no doubt Perl6Critic will adjudge it to being the moral equivalent of walking around with your fly unbuttoned if you don't use the long form; and a few individuals will adopt derigeur because they think it looks cute :)
I re-read Syn2 last week before posting this suggestion, and it strikes me that with all the stuff that can now appear inside double-quotes, it's easier to just backwack everything that isn't special, than work out what is. The old thing of "this is all just string constant except for a few bits that will be runtime substituted" has been turned on it's head.
And it will be impossible for editors, even those that are thinly disguised OSs, to highlight the difference between the passive and active bits. Ie. They will be unable to assist the (maintenance) programmer in working out which bits of string constants are actually constant and which are not.
I can see myself adopting the use of single quoted constants interspersed with concatenated variables and expressions, in order to make it clear what is constant and what not. So complex have the rules become.
In reply to Re^7: what would you like to see in perl5.12?
by BrowserUk
in thread what would you like to see in perl5.12?
by ysth
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |