Joseph F. Ryan: # >Why? Isn't the pretty form more generally useful? # > # # I don't think so; I'd think it to be annoying to have type # more code in order to specify a more cocise form; if I need # to dump a structure, I'd prefer to do it manually.
I think it's useful to be able to say @array.str() and $arrayref.str() and get the same result. And since we already know what @array.str will do (essentially what "@array" does in Perl 5), that suggests that $arrayref.str() will do the same. # > method str() { # > #Unnamed invocant means you need $_, right? # > return $_.class() ~ "($_.id())"; # > } # > # >(where id() returns a uniquely identifying integer, usually the # >address). # > # # Objects aren't references anymore, are they? So I don't # think it is apporpriate for an object to stringify with its id. To tell you the truth, I don't consider arrayrefs references anymore. They're just Array objects that don't happen to be in @whatever symbols. I don't know if this is the official view, but that fits my brain better. --Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> @roles=map {"Parrot $_"} qw(embedding regexen Configure) "If you want to propagate an outrageously evil idea, your conclusion must be brazenly clear, but your proof unintelligible." --Ayn Rand, explaining how today's philosophies came to be