On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 12:45:06PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> with %container {
> ->$fieldname = $value;
> ${->destinationvaluename} = ->value_to_put_there
> }
Then I'd've expected that to have been:
with \%container {
->{$fieldname} = $value;
${->{destinationvaluename} = ->{value_to_put_there};
}
And that's just too much punctuation for too little value.
How special purpose is "with"? Do people envision using it *only* on
hashes? (I did until this email) If so, I like Damian's version best:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02649.html
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NEW BACKSLASH was Re: implied pa... Markus Peter
- Re: PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NEW BACKSLASH was Re: impli... Nathan Torkington
- Re: PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NEW BACKSLASH was Re: i... David L. Nicol
- Re: PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NEW BACKSLASH was R... Markus Peter
- Re: PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NEW BACKSLASH was R... Nathan Torkington
- Re: PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NEW BACKSLASH w... David L. Nicol
- Re: PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NEW BACKSL... Michael Fowler
- Re: PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NEW BACKSL... Nathan Torkington
- Re: PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NEW BA... David L. Nicol
- Re: PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NE... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NE... Damian Conway
- Re: PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NEW BACKSLASH was R... Markus Peter
- Re: PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NEW BACKSLASH w... Bart Lateur
- Re: PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NEW BACKSLASH was Re: i... Bart Lateur
- Re: PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NEW BACKSLASH was R... Randal L. Schwartz
