David Green schreef: > Jonathan Lang:
>> (In fact, the semantics for "@x[*+n]" follows directly from the fact >> that an array returns the count of its elements in scalar context.) >> And "@x[*]" would be the same as "@x[0..^*]" or "@x[0..(*-1)]". > > That's an elegance in its favour. In Perl5 a "+" can creep in, for example: $ perl -wle '$s = "-123"; $n = -123; print -$s; print -$n' +123 123 so maybe it is not a bad idea to keep treating a "unary +" as (almost) a no-op. -- Affijn, Ruud "Gewoon is een tijger."
