From S02:
-- Perl 6 includes a system of B<sigils> to mark the fundamental structural type of a variable: $ scalar (object) @ ordered array % unordered hash (associative array) & code/rule/token/regex :: package/module/class/role/subset/enum/type/grammar @@ multislice view of @ C<$x> may be bound to any object, including any object that can be bound to any other sigil. C<@x> may be ... bound to any object that does the C<Positional> role C<%x> may be bound to any object that does the C<Associative> role C<&x> may be bound to any object that does the C<Callable> role C<::x> may be bound to any object that does the C<Abstract> role -- IIRC, could the above section about C<$x> be considered equivalent to saying that C<$x> may be bound to any object that does the C<Object> role? Also, a possible change in terminology: s/C<Positional>/C<< sigil:<@> >>/ s/C<Associative>/C<< sigil:<%> >>/ s/C<Callable>/C<< sigil:<&> >>/ s/C<Abstract>/C<< sigil:<::> >>/ s/C<Object>/C<< sigil:<$> >>/ if every object does the Object role This would free up more role names for programmer use. It would also imply that one could create a new sigil by defining a role named 'sigil:<...>', with the behavior of the sigil being established by the definition of the role. Or does this make it too easy to create new sigils? -- Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
