On Monday 15 July 2002 06:57 am, Sean O'Rourke wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Brent Dax wrote: > > Deborah Ariel Pickett: > > # My perl5 sensibilities tell me that that's likely to cause a > > # problem when I want to do something like this: > > # > > # $hashref = { function_returning_hash() }; > > # > > # because I won't get the function's return values put into a > > # hash, because the stuff inside the { ... } isn't a list of > > # pairs. Instead I'll get a (reference to) a closure, not at > > # all the same thing. > > You've got a point. There's an easy way to say "I want a sub": > > my $sub = -> { ... } > > But I can't think of a similarly punctuation-intensive way to say "I want > a hash." (someone please step in and correct me).
I nominate: $() == scalar() %() == hash() @() == array() For the above function: $hashref = %(function_returning_list_which_needs_to_be_hashified()); That would make %() a hash constructor, just like {}. Ashley Winters -- When you do the community's rewrite, try to remember most of us are idiots.