Damian Conway skribis 2005-02-22 22:13 (+1100):
> > @x = func($a, [EMAIL PROTECTED]);
> That's:
> @x = »func«($a, @y);
> But, y'know, this one almost convinces me. Especially when you consider:
> sub func ($i, $j, $k) {...}
> @x = func($a, [EMAIL PROTECTED], @z);
Naievely, I'd expect
my @a = @b = 1..3;
»foo«(@a, @b)
to result in
foo(@a[0], @b[0]),
foo(@a[1], @b[1]),
foo(@a[2], @b[2]);
but
foo([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED])
with the same arrays in
foo(@a[0], @b[0]),
foo(@a[0], @b[1]),
foo(@a[0], @b[2]),
foo(@a[1], @b[0]),
foo(@a[1], @b[1]),
foo(@a[1], @b[2]),
foo(@a[2], @b[0]),
foo(@a[2], @b[1]),
foo(@a[2], @b[2]);
Likewise,
@foo »+« @bar
would iterate in parallel, resulting in min([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
PROTECTED]) elements,
while
[EMAIL PROTECTED] + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would return [EMAIL PROTECTED] * [EMAIL PROTECTED] elements.
I'd then expect
$foo +« @bar
and
$foo + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to be equivalent (ęsthetically, the latter is more pleasing, imo).
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
