Larry Wall wrote: [snip] > Nope. $x and $p are syntax trees. <blink>
Macros are passed syntax trees as arguments, but return coderefs? That's... odd. I would expect that a macro would be expected to *return* a syntax tree... which could then undergo (more) macro-expansion. Sortof like how in lisp, a macro recieves lists as arguments (those lists being un-evaluated code) and then returns a list, which then has more macro expansion done on it, and then gets parsed and evaluated. -- $a=24;split//,240513;s/\B/ => /for@@=qw(ac ab bc ba cb ca );{push(@b,$a),($a-=6)^=1 for 2..$a/6x--$|;print "[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]\n";((6<=($a-=6))?$a+=$_[$a%6]-$a%6:($a=pop @b))&&redo;}