>> In particular, it would seem that
>> %foo[$key]
>> would be just as easy for the compiler to grok as
>> %foo{$key}
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:39:19 -0800, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure. But then is this:
>
> $ref[$key]
>
> an array or hash look-up???
Yes, well I suppose that could be considered one of the things I hadn't figured
out yet.
But is seems to me that if we're changing "$X[$n]" to "@X[$n]", then it would
be more consistent to change "$ref->[$key]" to "@$ref[$key]". Except of course
that mixing prefix and postfix notation is horrible, so perhaps "$ref@[$key]" and
"$ref%[$key]". (I'd assumed that "%[" and "@[" would be single symbols?)
> Decided at runtime?
That might be OK, except (as others have pointed out) for auto-vivification,
where the object doesn't exist before we operate on it.
Maybe we would get away with the shorthand "$ref[$index]" *except* where
autovivification is desired, and then we'd have to use the long-hand
"$ref@[$index]" and "$ref%[$index]" versions?
Hmmmmm, actually, I think I could class that as a feature, if the reader --
human or compiler -- could know just by looking whether auto-viv is expected.
-Martin
