Re: PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NEW BACKSLASH was Re: implied pascal-like"with" or "express"

Nathan Torkington wrote:

>   # making this part up
>   struct Person => [ qw(Name Age Height Weight) ];
>   # but once you have a named structure, you can say ...
>   my Person %nat;
>   with (%nat) {
>     $Name = "Nathan";   # rewritten to $nat{Name} at compile-time
>     ...
>   }
> 
> It's kinda like fields.pm only for real hashes not pseudohashes.
> 
> Nat


okay but we still have the hiding issue, in case we want it to
work with arbitrary hashes as well as defined structures: a neat
trick if we can do it, and we can.  In that case, the hiding properties
are not just one more thing to keep track of but become a 
security issue analougous to having . early in yout $PATH variable.

Therefore a way to indicate "this is near the end of a record name"
is required.  Dot already means too much (although is it defined
between barewords?  It might work, it works elsewhere) so I used \
in the way of the directory indicator from DOS, and in an allusion
to unary \ as the reference-of operator.

And you dont have to make sure the $s on the left of the names match
the {}s on the right, just use one $ and string the names together with
backslashes. This is not easier?


$one{two}			is $one\two
$$one{two}{three}		is $one\two\three
$$$one{two}{three}{four}	is $one\two\three\four


If we have _that_ already,

with %one\two {
	
	push @\three\four, 5,6;

}

is clear and invulnerable.

-- 
                          David Nicol 816.235.1187 [email protected]
           Laziness with responsibility http://www.tipjar.com/kcpm