* Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> [2022-06-12 21:39:27 -0400]: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2022, at 17:36, Graham Knop wrote: > > I like the general idea. I don't really like the spelling though, as ${ } already has meaning in the language and in interpolated strings. I'd say that the @{} form is not needed. Eliminating it could allow a better spelling for the ${ } form. > > > > Prior art: https://metacpan.org/pod/Quote::Code > > Thanks. If we have only one form, I'd suggest we use `#{ ... }` from Ruby. > > Quote::Code raises a good point: this would be useful in heredocs. I'll think about it. I agree; but in the example from Q::C: my $heredoc = qc_to <<'EOT'; .trigger:hover .message:after { content: "The #{get_adjective()} brown fox #{get_verb()} over the lazy dog."; } EOT print $heredoc; It'd be more consistent for it to be, (hint: s/#/&/): my $heredoc = qc_to <<'EOT'; .trigger:hover .message:after { content: "The &{get_adjective()} brown fox &{get_verb()} over the lazy dog."; } EOT print $heredoc; Q::C doesn't mention the rationale for '#" over '&' in this case, nor can I think of a reason to not use it here for the subroutine call. Besides, it could get a little confusing since bare '#' indicates a comment. Cheers, Brett > > -- > rjbs -- -- oodler@cpan.org oodler577@sdf-eu.org SDF-EU Public Access UNIX System - http://sdfeu.org irc.perl.org #openmp #pdl #nativeThread Previous | Thread Next