is just breathless hot air admiration, but completely orthogonal to the point I was making.
First of all ++, because I saw your post in Worst Nodes, and I don't think it deserves being, since however may I disagree with it, it's well written and thought
[...] 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 :)
(emphasis added by me)
I can't understand what you want to imply with the contraposition of "long-winded" and "long form" on one side and "simple" on the other one. I don't see how "..." and '...' are more complex than err, well, "..." and '...' respectively, with just the former having in Perl 6 some more and more reasonable interpolating power.
Is it that bad that in addition to
my $email = $user . '@location.wtf';
or
my $email = "$user\@location.wtf";
I can also write
my $email = qs($user@location.wtf); # ?
Personally, I find it very clear and perhaps the least confusing of the three.
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 am fond of syntax highlighting: indeed I have set up an association in my editor for certain extensions and when I happen to mistype the latter on launching sometimes I start writing and only after a few lines do I realize I did, as if awakening from a dream while saying: is this stuff that I've written Perl? But as I wrote, personally I don't find that kind of assistance from the editor to be particularly valuable. Indeed if it highlighted variables interpolated into strings it would be distracting for me: just too many colors dancing in front of me. To each his own I suppose.
Anyway nothing but perl can parse Perl, and although Perl 6 is more orthogonal and consistent than Perl 5, this is not going to change. Indeed it will be promoted to: nothing but Perl can parse Perl. So no editor will ever do a perfect job of Perl syntax highlighting, but it may come close. Yours may just highlight {...} blocks: you may stick to that and your editor do a decent hob with them. OTOH I've heard rumors about the possibility of a perl interpreter to editor/ide communication for better management including syntax highlighting and other stuff.
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.
For simple strings the rules are more or less as they are. The added complexity in more general cases is not that much, and anyway doesn't come at a price not worth the gain...
In reply to Re^8: 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: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |