On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:11:01PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2001 20:38:31 +0100, Graham Barr wrote: > > >You forgot > > > > $bar[$foo]; # $bar is an array reference > > $bar{$foo}; # $bar is a hash reference > > As to what the combined > > $bar[$foo] > > would mean: that depends on what $bar contains. > > (Aw! That hurt!) yeah, 'that hurt' is right. I like visual clues to tell me what type of variable something is. And I disagree strongly with trying to steamroller the language's design paper-flat as much as I disagree with unnecessary ornamentation. So I'll take my '{}', thank you very much.... Ed
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- 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 Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation David L. Nicol
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Bart Lateur
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation Edward Peschko
- RE: what I meant about hungarian notation David Whipp
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Simon Cozens
- 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 Simon Cozens