Uri Guttman wrote: > > >>>>> "dne" == dskippy@ccs neu edu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> you complain about not liking hash of hash but you like mucking with > >> symbol tables which are just hashes? that makes absolutely no sense. it > > dne> it's because they get merged without explicit calls. that's really the > dne> only reason. > > clarify please. i don't see any merging of hashes here without calls or > sharing namespaces. > > dne> btw: first class values are values that can be passed as an > dne> argument, returned as a value, and stored in a data structure. in > dne> perl only scalars are first class thus you must reference every > dne> value with a scalar to use them in the mentioned places. (accept > dne> maybe with prototypes you can pass them, i'm not sure) > > what is wrong with references as first class values? they work fine and > don't need any special prototypes or syntax to work. requiring scalar > values is not a real limitation. IMO you just seem to think it is.
Alright, you guys, cut it out. If he thinks its a limitation, that's his right to an opinion. This is not a mailing list dedicated to singing praises of all things Holy and Perl. Perl isn't perfect, and it has some idiosyncracies which take some getting used to. He just happened to voice his opinion that he didn't like this one. well, actually, it started out with a "how do I ...?" question, to which you replied "why? that makes no sense?" to which he replied "because I dont like it" to which you replied "IMO that's just your opinion" If I understand his question correctly, he's running into perl's "list context crushing machine" which takes hashes, arrays, and everything else, and reduces them to a single list of scalars. I've never seen this in another language before perl, and it took some time for me to wrap my brain around the idea too. enough already. Greg
