> Damian Conway wrote: > > or even a arrayed form, when the corresponding index was implicit: > > > > (@foo,@bar,@zap) := part [/foo/, /bar/, /zap/], @source; > > That's kinda nifty. But admittedly, it's not to-die-for necessary, if > I'm the only one fond of it.
I think this makes a nice specialization of the hash approach. However, I believe it will become cumbersome with anything other than trivial expressions. The hash approach, in that case, would be clearer. Tanton
