Re: RFC 175 (v1) Add C keyword to force list context (like C)

[Graham Barr]

On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 11:23:16AM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
> I read your message and agree. Not that I liked the idea that much even
> before considering the ramifications. But do you agree that even
> seasoned perlers have trouble anticipating how a list/array is going to
> be converted to a scalar?

I would say the only place this is an issue is when the RHS is the return
of a sub. You may not know if it was  return (1,2,3)  or   return @a
and there seems to be no standard way people document the difference.

> I'd vote for no C<list> operator, but for adding a count operator and a
> last element operator. I suggest ()= for the first and C<peek> for the
> second. I wouldn't mind if the first were spelled C<count>, either. Tom,
> does this make sense, or am I confusing "lists" with "the comma operator
> in parentheses" again?

perl already has a count operator, it is the only 4 charater non-alpha
operator it has   =()=   :)

Graham.