Thom Boyer wrote:
> But the main point I was trying to make is just that I didn't see the
> necessity of positing
>
> 1,2,3\say
>
> when (if I understand correctly) you could write that as simply as
>
> 1,2,3 say
Nope. This is the same situation as the aforementioned '++' example,
in that you'd get into trouble if anyone were to define an infix:<say>
operator.
> That seems better to me than saying that there's no tab character in
>
> say "blah $x\t blah"
Whoever said that?
> Backslashes in double-quotish contexts are already complicated enough!
...and they'd remain precisely as complicated as they are now, because
backslashes in interpolating quotes and in patterns would continue to
behave precisely as they do now. Backslash-as-unspace would remain
unique to "code" context, as it is now, changing only in that it gets
followed by \s* instead of \s+. In particular, if you were to define
a postfix:<t> operator, you'd embed it in a string as:
say "blah {$x\t} blah"
--
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
