Ashley Winters:
# > 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 {}.
IIRC, $() and @() are already being used to denote scalar and array
context. Of course, an array or hash in scalar context would probably
referencify.
I'd suggest that $(), @(), and %() all be syntactic sugar for a
context() keyword:
$(foo) = context SCALAR : foo();
@(foo) = context ARRAY : foo();
%(foo) = context HASH : foo();
foo(); = context VOID : foo();
\foo() = context REF : foo();
foo()[0..5] = context ARRAY, 6: foo();
my MyClass $x=foo() = my MyClass $x=context MyClass : foo();
This context() keyword would be like the opposite of want(). Of course,
something like:
context $x: foo();
Might not work.
--Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
@roles=map {"Parrot $_"} qw(embedding regexen Configure)
He who fights and runs away wasted valuable running time with the
fighting.
