>>>>> "ML" == Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ML> On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 03:38 PM, Uri Guttman wrote: >> but you can't derive the rules about allowing push/pop/splice/slice >> from >> that pair of defintions. ML> Is there any syntactic reason why both of the following cannot be ML> allowed? ML> (1,2,3).pop that is no different than saying (3). as the list can't be modified nor a ref taken, the pop is illegal. ML> [1,2,3].pop ML> I don't know that one is any more/less useful than the other, and it ML> would seem a list could be silently promoted to an array where it is ML> used as an array. For example, ML> \(1,2,3) ML> returns an array reference... in perl5 it returns a list of refs ( \1, \2, \3 ). i dunno the perl6 semantics. it could be the same as [ 1, 2, 3 ] which means it is not a list but sugar for a new anon array and more like: do{ \my @foo = ( 1, 2, 3 ) } but we only need [] for all that. uri -- Uri Guttman ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- http://www.stemsystems.com ----- Stem and Perl Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding ---- Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org Damian Conway Perl Classes - January 2003 -- http://www.stemsystems.com/class