On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hm. How is (*@;AoA) different from (Array [EMAIL PROTECTED]) then? (Assuming > that > foo(@a; @b) desugars to foo([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]).)
Well, it's not at all, under that assumption. But that assumption is wrong. I think foo(@a; @b) doesn't have a sugar-free form (that is to say, it is the sugar-free form). Among things that desugar to it: @a ==> foo() <== @b foo(@a) <== @b @a ==> @b ==> foo() # maybe; don't remember To illustrate: sub foo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) { say [EMAIL PROTECTED]; } sub bar (*@;a) { say +@;a; } foo(1,2,3; 4,5,6); # 6 bar(1,2,3; 4,5,6); # 2 That is, the regular [EMAIL PROTECTED] has "concat" semantics. However, I'd like to argue that it should have "die" semantics, for obvious reasons. Luke