Re: Significant whitespace (was Re: Blogging sucks)

[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2005/10/17]

From: Abigail
Subject: Re: Significant whitespace (was Re: Blogging sucks)
Date: 08:34 on 17 Oct 2005
--NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 12:12:39AM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Abigail <abigail@xxxxxxx.xx> [2005-10-16 23:55]:
> > > Can you throw in whitespace in those examples if you use the
> > > new %hash??key?? syntax instead?
> >=20
> > Question marks? No idea to which syntax you are referring.
> >=20
> > > (And if not, would it at least be possible to parse the
> > > examples umambiguously if it *were* allowed? If the answer to
> > > that question is yes, then I would lobby for dropping the {}
> > > hash lookup operator altogether and permitting whitespace
> > > with the ???? operator.)
> >=20
> > I've heard about the ??:: operator, replacing the ?: one. But
> > ????, no idea.
>=20
> In both cases I am talking about the %hash<<key>> syntax (per
> ASCII-transliterated version of the operator).

Ah, that one. I think that this week[*] they are going for:

    %hash<key>

However, that's another subject for hate. Currenly, in Perl5, one can do:

    $hash {EXPRESSION}

or:

    $hash {bare_word}

as a short-cut for:

    $hash {"bare_word"}

And perl is smart enough to figure out what you want.  Not so in
Perl6. Perl6 will be a massive attempt to get all the DWIM from Perl
(the thing that makes Perl Perl), and make the programmer a slave of
the compiler. So, no more auto-quoting of hash keys. Instead, you got to
tell the compiler you have a bare word. If you use <> to index in a hash,
it's going to be a bare word. If you don't use a bare word, you use {}.
Fuckers. If I wanted Java, I know where to find it.


[*] Actually, that was last week. I've no idea what this weeks syntax
    is going to be.

Abigail

--NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDU1PqBOh7Ggo6rasRAneSAJ9NROCKflsNIpnEHvhAiMpsdRGKoACfWdeE
OXh9QPxnhg6hP7PUIfJ9Zyw=
=UOmv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh--
There's stuff above here

Generated at 20:00 on 17 Oct 2005 by mariachi 0.52