Re: String Literals, take 1

[email protected] ("Joseph Ryan") Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:42:24 +0000
Newsgroups perl.perl6.documentation
Message-ID <[email protected]>
>: Luke Palmer <[email protected]>
>>: Joseph F. Ryan <[email protected]>


> > Perhaps only first level references should stringify nicely, and inner
> > references stringify perl5 style.  I think that if Data::Dumper style
> > stringification is wanted, then a C<< use Data::Dumper; >> shouldn't
> > anger too many people.  This would solve circular referencing, at
> > least.
>
>That's the question of whether stringification will strictly be
>serializing, or whether that will be a method call and stringification
>should "look pretty" or "be useful".  I prefer the latter.

Same.

>
> > >Is this true?  We changed the numeric octal shorthand base to 0c777, so
> > >what sense does \o for octal charcters make?  (Unfornatly, we can't use 
>\c,
> > >since that's taken for control charcters.)  IIRC, somebody had 
>mentioned
> > >just getting rid of \o altogether.  People don't think in octal.
> >
> > Last time I remember an official decision, it was \o; however, I've
> > been a bit out of the loop that last couple of days, so I could be
> > wrong here.
>
>I remember hearing that the octal shorthand was 0o777.

Right, so octal stringification shorthand would be "\o777".

>
> > >>Within an interpolated string, interpolation of expressions can be
> > >>stopped by \Q.
> > >(Which acts somewhat like a non-breaking space.)
>
>I though \Q...\E was leaving in favor of \Q{...}

It is; however, there is a null \Q that acts to break up
interpolated expressions; take a look at

http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/05/03/wall.html#rfc 328: single quotes don't 
interpolate \' and \\

Under the "Weird Brackets" section.

>
> > >I think we need a non-optional space to follow the << in the case of
> > >double-quotes to disambuilage with <<>> qw lists.
> >
> > Apoc 2 explicitly states that the space will be optional.
>
>But Apoc 2 thought that <<qw stuff>> was spelled < qw stuff >.  I
>really don't know whether it should or not.

Thats true; why exactly was <> abandoned in favor of <<>> in the first 
place?

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963