Re: Brainstorming: quoted identifier operator

* Branislav Zahradník <[email protected]> [2026-01-07 11:06]:
> ```
> sub qi (this is nicely readable test name) {
> }
> ```

If you really want this,

    *{'this is nicely readable test name'} = sub { say "hi" };
    &{'this is nicely readable test name'};
    __END__
    Output:
    hi

The fact that it is kinda ugly is IMO a feature. I don’t think heavy use
of this should be encouraged. And I actually find it more readable. IMO
it is much quicker to skim this:

    &{'recursive fibonacci'}($n - 1) + &{'recursive fibonacci'}($n - 2)

… than this:

    qi(recursive fibonacci)($n - 1) + qi(recursive fibonacci)($n - 2)

… where the visual distinction between parameter lists and function
names dissolves and `qi` itself looks like a function name.

Given that `qi` would be a quote-like operator, you can at least solve
the “what is going on” problem by using a different delimiter like

    qi{recursive fibonacci}($n - 1) + qi{recursive fibonacci}($n - 2)

but then then alphanumeric token `qi` still interferes more with my
skimming far more than the punctuation mark `&` in the first example,
which to me blends into the rest of the punctuation and lets the
function name stick out.

And if you don’t like how declaring such a function looks, you just
write a helper:

    sub testcase ( $name, $coderef ) {
        my $pkg = caller;
        *{"$pkg::$name"} = $coderef;
        # can easily throw in a Sub::Util::set_subname call here too,
        # then it will work exactly as the hypothetical `qi` operator would
    }

    testcase 'this is nicely readable test name' => sub { say "hi" };

In terms of readability a helper like `testcase` communicates intent
better than just a “this is some function with a non-identifier name”
operator too.