On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:14:04AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: > Again, we're wading into the waters of over-simplification. Let's try: > > sub foo1(){ my @foo=(1,2,3); return @foo; } > sub foo2(){ my $foo = [1,2,3]; return $foo; } > sub foo3(*@list) { print @list.length, "\n"; } > @foo = (1,2,3); > foo3(@foo, [1,2,3], foo2(), foo1()); > > Ok, so what is the output? 12? 10? 8? > > More importantly, why? I could argue the case for each of the above > numbers, but I think 12 is the way it would be right now.
Hrm. I think it must be 8. Since foo3() flattens it's parameters, we get this: foo3(1, 2, 3, [1,2,3], [1,2,3], 1, 2, 3); and since the two [1,2,3] are scalar things, we have 8 scalar things in our list. Splat doesn't "look inside" the thing it flattens AFAIK, so it doesn't flatten the two [1,2,3]. -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]