> >I was just thinking that $((1,2,3)) is also the same as [1,2,3], > >and shorter than scalar(1,2,3). > > > I wonder if you can't just use $(1, 2, 3) to the same effect.
I think you can. I was under the impression that the C comma was dying, so that would have to make a list or err. > Also, I > wonder if you can do this: > my @LoL = ( ("1a", "2a"), > ("1b", "2b"), > ("1c", "2c") ); > Yeah, I think to get Perl5 behavioueaur :), you do this: my @flatL = ( *("1a", "2a"), *("1b", "2b") ); Does this do the same thing? my @flatL = *( ("1a", "2a"), ("1b", "2b") ); (Heh, I just got a fun thought:) my $traversal_time = 2***@list; > If you can, the only case where I could see [1, 2, 3] being necessary is > in a sub call where the parameters are wrapped in parentheses. Not even then, if $(1, 2, 3) is allowed. If so, it might be possible to find another use for [...]. I like that syntax, but if we need a balanced delimiter to do something else, that could be it... Of course, the parallel [...] to @foo[...] goes nicely with {...} to %foo{...}, so it will probably stay. Luke