in reply to Re^7: Two more Features Perl 5 Maybe Needs
in thread Five Features Perl 5 Needs Now


          Contrary to Perl 6 my approach is still compatible, because you can transform them back into standard Perl 5.

      ... until the first time you run into a precedence problem, for example with hash or list slices.

    Don't know what you mean ... all my examples were parenthesized so precedence problems shouldn't occur !?!

I mean exactly:

    Actually it's practically impossible to implement this with a simple code-filter,...

My point is that the proposed transformation rules are well-defined and backwards-compatible within perl5, contrary to perl6. One can always take code with new sigils and transform it back into normal sigils and parentheses to run it with an old perl 5 version.

The implementation of these rules with static code filters can of course only be - like I already said - an ersatz to demonstrate the concept. This is certainly not meant for production.

For the realisation: If it's not possible to extend the perl parser accordingly, a real macro system is needed (which is N° 8 on my wishlist) That means changing the code after compilation but before execution!

>In other words, you're arguing to add more syntax to Perl, syntax that's difficult to type, to make the simple cases easy

well I think most languages, including perl6, consider it easier that arrays are primarily references and only transformed into a list if it's indicated by a modifier.

Maybe I should express these transformation rules with plain words instead of code, to make them clearer:

  1. €arr is a scalar $arr which holds a array_ref
  2. €arr[][] can be dereferenced without any arrow-operator, that means is identical to $arr->[]->[].
  3. Dereferencing of €arr has higher precedence than transformation to an array:  @€arr[][] == @{€arr[][]}
  4. In situations where the parser wants an array to follow (*), e.g. forced by prototype (\@) , €arr is passed directly. That means push €arr,expr is identical to push @$arr,expr
I think all perl-experts (like you are), might think it's getting more complicated this way, but I bet most beginners will consider it much easier and experts will adapt easily. Because it's huffman-coded, the frequent use cases are getting much easier, and the others don't get more complicated! And IMHO anyway there is no need anymore to use @arr or %hash if one can seemlesly use references!

Cheers Rolf

(*) more precisely in these situations an @ has to follow but only the reference is passed.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Extended Sigils: Demonstration Of Concept
by LanX (Saint) on Dec 24, 2008 at 16:26 UTC

    To help you to get a feeling for what I mean, try this uncompleted(!) codefilter, which is only a hack(!) under construction ...

    XSigils.pm
    #!/usr/bin/perl sub ar2list ($) { return @{ $_[0] }; } sub push_aref ($@) { CORE::push( @{+shift} , @_ ); } package XSigils; use Filter::Simple; FILTER { warn "\n\n\n --- Before Transformation: \n$_"; s{ push (\s|\() (\s*) €} {push_aref$1$2€}xg; s{ \@ \s* €} {ar2list €}xg; # 2array s{ €(\w+)\[ } {\$$1->\[}xg; # dereference s{ €(\w+) } {\$$1}xg; # simple scalar warn "\n\n\n --- After Transformation: \n$_"; warn "\n\n\n --- Code execution!\n"; }; 1;
    tstXSigils.pl
    #!/usr/bin/perl use XSigils; $\="\n"; €arr=[1..3]; push €arr,4,5; print @€arr;
    OUTPUT
    --- Before Transformation: $\="\n"; €arr=[1..3]; push €arr,4,5; print @€arr; # (*) --- After Transformation: $\="\n"; $arr=[1..3]; push_aref $arr,4,5; print ar2list $arr; --- Code execution! 12345

    Cheers Rolf

    UPDATE: (*) of course that's more complicated than print @arr, but I wonder how perl6 intends to handle this case ... ?

      I think it's time for you to let it go. It's not just your own time you're wasting.
        > It's not just your own time you're wasting.

        I'm bringing code, but instead of counter arguments your telling me that I'm wasting your time?

        Merry Xmas!