--- Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What was the reason again which Larry rejected unifying the syntax > for array > > and hash indexing? > > Because some things have both, and do different things with each. > And because some built-in redundancy is useful for error checking, > especially on complex nested data structures. > > > > As Piers said, we know whether $a is an array or hash reference > when we do: > > > > print $a->{foo}; > > No we don't. Especially if $a is $0 (i.e. the result of a pattern > match). > See Exegesis 5 for details.
$0 has more baggage than a gaggle of New York matrons on an extended vacation. Please don't tell me that you want that to be the reference definition for all arrays/hashes? And it's neither an array nor a hash -- it's a "result", according to A5. I'm assuming that's a magic class, no? =Austin