David Grove wrote: > $ is a singularity, @ is a multiplicity, and % is a multiplicity of pairs > with likely offspring as a result. ;-) Actually, % is also simply a multiplicity, differentiated only by the semantics of its indexing. Which is why I argued, some time back, in favor of conflating arrays and hashes. -- John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Eric Roode
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Grove
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation David L. Nicol
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Grove
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Matt Youell
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Grove
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Bart Lateur
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Michael G Schwern
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Grove
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Larry Wall
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Grove
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Larry Wall
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens