> From: "Joseph Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 08:08:10 +0000
>
> >The default .AS_STRING for Strings is obvious. Int and Num stringify to a
> >decimal number (using the e exponential form if it is shorter?).
>
> I hope not; if someone wants a number in e form, they should specify it
> themselves.
% perl6 -le 'print 4.2e22'
42000000000000000000000
I don't think so. They should certainly keep whatever accuracy they
know about, but not more. So bigints will print all of their digits.
> Perhaps only first level references should stringify nicely, and inner
> references stringify perl5 style. I think that if Data::Dumper style
> stringification is wanted, then a C<< use Data::Dumper; >> shouldn't
> anger too many people. This would solve circular referencing, at
> least.
That's the question of whether stringification will strictly be
serializing, or whether that will be a method call and stringification
should "look pretty" or "be useful". I prefer the latter.
> >I thought it was named <<foo bar baz>> or «foo bar baz» or qw(). (That
> >middle one should be U+00AB and U+00BB, \N{LEFT-POINTING DOUBLE ANGLE
> >QUOTATION MARK} and \N{RIGHT-POINTING DOUBLE ANGLE QUOTATION MARK}.
> >Additionaly, I'm fairly certian, the Unicode ops could be either direction.
> > I think there was a reason for that, but I don't remember what.
>
> It was <> in Apoc 2; however, if it changed in a discussion on
> perl6-language, I'm unaware of it.
≪words and stuff≫;
@c = @a ≫+≪ @b;
> >Is this true? We changed the numeric octal shorthand base to 0c777, so
> >what sense does \o for octal charcters make? (Unfornatly, we can't use \c,
> >since that's taken for control charcters.) IIRC, somebody had mentioned
> >just getting rid of \o altogether. People don't think in octal.
>
> Last time I remember an official decision, it was \o; however, I've
> been a bit out of the loop that last couple of days, so I could be
> wrong here.
I remember hearing that the octal shorthand was 0o777.
> >>Within an interpolated string, interpolation of expressions can be
> >>stopped by \Q.
> >(Which acts somewhat like a non-breaking space.)
I though \Q...\E was leaving in favor of \Q{...}
> >I think we need a non-optional space to follow the << in the case of
> >double-quotes to disambuilage with <<>> qw lists.
>
> Apoc 2 explicitly states that the space will be optional.
But Apoc 2 thought that <<qw stuff>> was spelled < qw stuff >. I
really don't know whether it should or not.
Luke
