* Father Chrysostomos <sprout@cpan.org> [2013-08-19T16:41:42] > Ricardo Signes wrote: > > We allow ->@* at the end of an expression that we would've allowed up to > > that point. Of your examples above, which I've taken the liberty of > > numbering, #1 and #2 qualify. Of the rest, none do. > ... > > So: "@{ $foo->[0] }" isn't so bad; generic interpolation form > > Your response comes across as a bit ambiguous. Sorry for the navel-gazing (although I'm glad I got it on record) and for the delay in replying. > So will ->@* and ->@[ and ->@{ interpolate? I think they should, as described, when at the end of an existing parsed expression. We should intuit that there is more to an expression in the above forms. > If so, what will the feature feature be called? (Yes, we need a fea- > ture feature for that.) I agree that we at least need a feature for interpolation. > If we have a feature feature, then should it govern the new syntax > altogether, or just its interpolation? I think we should have it govern only interpolation. There would be no reason to disable it for the other form. Given that, I'd call the feature interpolate_postderef. I think. Got a better suggestion. I'm open to the argument that this feature should not go in :5.20, although I'd certainly turn it on. -- rjbsThread Previous | Thread Next