Instead of a scalar you require a list to be interpolated into a string!

(which also involves the extra complication of setting $" appropiately.)

It's just another case and depends on the context you want for the inner code.

Not really.

   "@{[ ... list context ... ]}";
[download]

That's what everyone expects. But:

   "${\(... list context ... )}";
[download]

The reference operator (\) provides list context to its arguments. I've been bitten by this in the past as well.

ups that's true, I forgot about this, Thx! :)

Cheers Rolf

Update please disregard, I should have read more carefully...

It's cleaner because it also works when multiple elements are present:

use strict;
use warnings;
use 5.010;

my ($a, $b) = (4, 5);

say "@{ [$a // 2, $b] }";         # 4 5
say "@{\($a // 2, $b) }";         # Not an ARRAY reference at foo.pl l
+ine 8.
[download]

The feature of \( LIST ) to return the same as map \$_, LIST is not always intuitive.

Perl 6 - links to (nearly) everything that is Perl 6.

Noone suggested @{\ }. That would never work unless you had an array, in which case you don't need this trick at all. @{[ ]} was being compared to ${\ } and/or ${\( )}.

It's not so much that it's "cleaner". The reason I'd prefer it myself is that it's idiomatic. It's a fairly well-known construct. Even if you don't use it yourself, it's worth knowing because it's something you'll probably see in others' code.

I don't think the same is as true of "${\()}" -- I can't recall ever seeing that before today.