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