>>>>> "JM" == James Mastros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JM> If those two paragraps (and the two after them) are replaced with <<CUT,
JM> what's still wrong with the RFC?
JM> Therefore, return values of lvalue subs stay as their final GV, which is
JM> passed into the assignment, and is then assigned to the rvalue.
JM> CUT
JM> (Note that "stay as their final GV" is equivlent to that whole long
JM> paragraph, I think. I'm not too good at internals yet (but I'm trying to
JM> learn).)
Stay away from implementation, specify the semantics. The internals will
probably have nothing to do with the old perl5 internals. I think all
of the SV, etc will probably go away. (A GV is a glob I believe not
something that holds a value. SV is a scalar, AV, is an array)
Perhaps you could simply specify that perl will take the return value
and treat it as a 'pointer', 'reference', 'lvalue' if it can.
I think of it as the return value being translated
sub foo { return %hash }
foo = %other;
as being
%hash = %other
<chaim>
--
Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
