I'm ok with both :
alias (%foo, %bar);
AND
my \%foo = \%bar;
the first variant look better to me (I mean it is easy to spot when u are
reading the code), but I also expected as U the second to work in Perl5 and
was very dissapointed to see that it doesn't work.:"(
The keyword "alias" on the other hand can do also some other stuff us (can't
figure out what else but.. :") ), or can be ALIASED too :") so we can
override its behaviour if we want.... or if it look like operator we can use
perl overriding mehanism :
%foo alias %bar;
still not see what can be the benefit... but just thinking...
=====
iVAN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====
> "Sterin, Ilya" wrote:
> >
> > alias(%foo, %bar) is better IMO since it conforms to other functions in
> > perl.
> > my %foo is alias = %bar; #seems a little out of scope of the language,
> > unless more functionality is implemented in that way.
> >
> > Ilya
>
>
> Is there a problem with the following? Besides that it doesn't work
> like I want it to? Am I mistaken in believing that it is a clear,
> concise and unambiguous way to request assignment of a symbol to
> be an alias to another?
>
> my \%foo = \%bar;
>
> (And besides that it extends p5 syntax instead of being apo2-compliant?)
