Re: A possible solution for s?pintf

[Rod Adams]

Matt Diephouse wrote:
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 

Besides, I think "as" will do just fine, especially since you can now
interpolate method calls as well.  You can even do something like this
if you want to perform bulk formatting:
   say join ' ', ($n1, $n2, $n3) >>.as('%d');
   

What about:
 say [ $n1, $n2, $n3 >>.as('%d') ].join;
?
Can I (1) use join on a bracketed list 

Certainly. Almost anywhere you can use an array, an array ref will do 
instead.

and (2) leave off the
parentheses around C<$n1, $n2, $n3>? (I couldn't find where hyper ops
are on the precedence table.)
 

I think you'd need the parens there, to distinguish that the . operator 
applies to the list, not to $n3. Hyper's are not on the list because 
they are adverbs to the existing operators. In this case, you're using 
unary ., so you follow it's precedence.

You could easily write the above as
   say (($n1, $n2, $n3)».as('%d')).join;
What I'm not certain about is if
   say ($n1, $n2, $n3)».as('%d').join;
does the same thing, but I think it does.
And this:
 say [ $num => '%d', $str => '%s' ] >>.key.as(.value);
 

No. .key returns a string, which you call the .as method of, which is 
fine, but the .value is a separate expression, and references the 
current topic, which is not tied to the array.

Related to what I'm not sure about above is that I think you'd have to 
say C< [...]».key».as($pattern) > to get it working correctly.


(4) use square brackets in
this instance (to make sure my list doesn't form a parameter list to
C<say>)?
Yes, but whitespace between the "say" and "(" should do the trick as 
well. Might generate a warning, however.

-- Rod Adams