On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, John Porter wrote:
> In his P6 Summary for 2002-07-14, in section
> "Perl 6 grammar, take 5", Piers says:
>
> someone pointed out that [the grammar] had a problem
> with code like
>
> { some_function_returning_a_hash() }
>
> Should it give a closure? Or a hash ref?
> Larry hasn't commented so far.
>
> I couldn't find where anyone said any such thing,
> but regardless, it's still a good question.
>
> I believe it should give a hash ref, for two (related)
> reasons:
>
> a. it is the more common case. Better Huffman coding.
Too bad its a closure, then. A4 says that bare braces will be a closure
unless they conatin a pair constructor => at the top level.
I imagine bare braces without a
pair construcor referring to a closure is more common than constructing a
hashref... in Perl 6, that is. (That's just a guess, though).
> b. there is a word to make it a closure explicitly
> which the programmer can add if that's what she
> wants. No such word (AFAIK) does the same for
> a hash ref.
C<sub> makes a closure. C<hash> makes a hashref. So there is a word.
> And if this is something that has already been hashed out,
> never mind. :-)
It is. Well, I minded anyway.
Luke
