Re^10: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references

it's well defined that all arguments are evaluated before they are passed to a function.

If this is right:

C:\test>perl -E"$\"=''; {my@x; sub X{ push@x,'x';;\@x}}; say qq[@{X()}
+@{X()}]"
xxx
[download]

Then this is wrong:

C:\test>perl -E"{my$x; sub X{ $x.='x';\$x}}; say qq[${X()}${X()}]"
xxxx
[download]

And vice versa.

From your other post:

it's a clear violation ...

Of what? Your sensibilities? Do you think the same about print "The price is: $obj->tostring()\n";?

Saying you don't like it, is not the same as it being illegal. And it has always been legal, so it should be consistent.

From my understanding, interpolating code references into strings is not just legal in Perl6, but further enhanced.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

The start of some sanity?

Comment on Re^10: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^11: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references by LanX (Saint) on Mar 08, 2012 at 12:28 UTC
> "The price is: $obj->tostring()\n";? Isn't evaled for me, could you please give me a complete and working snippet? Cheers Rolf	[reply]
Re^12: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 08, 2012 at 14:19 UTC
> "The price is: $obj->tostring()\n";? Isn't evaled for me, I know. But wouldn't it be convenient if it was interpolated()? See http://szabgab.com/perl-6--scalar-array-and-hash-interpolation.html Just expressions: say "Take 1+4"; will print: Take 1+4 as expected but as I wrote you can put any expression in the curly braces, so you can also write: say "Take {1+4}"; that will print: Take 5* Isn't that nicer than `print "Take " . ( 1 + 4 ) . "\n";`? And remember, interpolation is not like string eval, more like block eval. It can be compiled at compile time, and just run on demand. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. The start of some sanity?	[reply] [d/l]
Re^13: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references by trwww (Priest) on Mar 08, 2012 at 16:51 UTC
Admittedly I'm pretty far off topic from the thread, but I prefer: `print "Take ", 1 + 4, "\n";` and like this even more: `printf "Take %i\n", 1 + 4;` But the prospect of a cleaner syntax to interpolate more... stuff than we currently can is interesting.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^14: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references by JavaFan (Canon) on Mar 08, 2012 at 17:40 UTC
Re^14: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 08, 2012 at 19:37 UTC


Syntactic Confectionery Delight
	PerlMonks