On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 05:01:29PM -0600, David L. Nicol wrote:
> > A /much/ better syntax, in [John Mastros's] humble opinion. However,
"James", BTW. (No, I don't really care.)
> > $__ must act sanely when we're called as an inner function (IE foo(bar(42))).
> if we allow $__ to have meaning more than one deep we'll be in action-at-a-distance
> land for sure.
Right, this is how I defined sanity.
> > [john porter] thinks that's unnecessarily baroque. Just let $__ be an alias
> > to the return value stack, the place where return() puts its
> > args anyway.
> > In fact, shouldn't it be @__ ?
> ($a, $b, $c) = foo($_); # ref($__ ) is now ARRAY
> This new variable could take the place of C<want>; or C<want> could mean
> C<ref($__)>
Well, hold your horses a moment. Does ref grok aliases? (BTW, what's the
difference between an alias and an automagicly dereferenced ref? If
nothing, why do we claim to never autoderef?) Is assigning to @__ the same
as assigning to @{$__}? Nope. Does @$__ have any meaning if $__ is an
alias, not a reference? Nope.
I'm quickly getting more confused here then I want to be, so I'm going to
stop now.
-=- James Mastros
--
AIM: theorbtwo homepage: http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/
