Juerd writes: > Damian Conway skribis 2005-02-22 22:13 (+1100): > > > @x = func($a, [EMAIL PROTECTED]); > > That's: > > @x = ÂfuncÂ($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; > ÂfooÂ(@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]);
Hmm, this all makes me think of my proposal a few weeks back: Â foo(@a[$^i], @b[$^i]) Â Â foo(@a[$^i], @b[$^j]) Â I've grown to believe that my proposal had some kinks in it, particularly in the area of what kind of thing [EMAIL PROTECTED] is. But I'm also believing that something like it is becoming warranted. Luke