Phoenix.pm: quoting constant hash keys survey

[Scott Walters]

Okey, that's two opinions (in favor, no vote). Can do manage, oh, say,
8? What's the matter, don't you people crawl out of bed on a gorgeous Saturday
morning at the break of dawn and read your email?

-scott

On  0, Anthony Nemmer <intertwingled at qwest.net> wrote:
> 
> Perl 6 i going to end up looking like Morse Code. =)
> 
> Tony
> 
> Scott Walters wrote:
> 
> >String concat has been renamed ~ from _. . is method call. Primitive
> >types "autobox" now, so you can ask an array for a length or a hash
> >for its keys:
> >
> >  %hash.keys  # method call
> >
> >So, people have adopted the dot for method calls, and JavaScript uses the
> >dot for both method calls and hash subscripts (as well as array indices),
> >but since we could be either calling a method or subscripting a primitive,
> >we have to tell perl which it is or risk confusion when we can't access
> >hash subscripts with the same name as methods.
> >
> >-scott
> >
> >On  0, eden li <eden.li at asu.edu> wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>I like it, but I don't see why perl can't just adopt the dot like Java and C.
> >>
> >>%foo.bar -> %foo{'bar'}
> >>
> >>I guess could be ambiguously parsed as a string concat operator:
> >>
> >>(%foo) . bar()
> >>
> >>But I'm wondering if %foo can exist in that context all by itself in Perl6.  Anyway, either way, I'm all for typing less.  Besides, gullimets seem to stand out more than they should, especially for every hash access in which you don't feel like typing quotes.
> >>
> >>Scott Walters wrote:
> >>    
> >>
> >>>Okey, everyone run and vote - yea or nay. Let's hear it. Even if your
> >>>reasons are unfounded, vote.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> SKYKING, SKYKING, DO NOT ANSWER.
> 
>