Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> Goodness, it certainly does. It's loads easier than learning a new buzz^Wkeyword
> or a new switch, because you already know it.
Nobody with a sound mind would ever suggest that:
> $stuff = () = $r =~ /crap/shit/;
Wouldn't still work. At least not me. But these two work:
print "Got " . @array . " elements";
print "Got " . scalar @array . " elements";
So why again does a "list" keyword not make sense? Seems "scalar" is
just as redundant here.
> However, if foo($) is thus "prototyped",
> you need but write
>
> foo( () = bar() )
>
> to get bar() to be called in list context. This is wholly intuitive.
For me, yeah. But I can name at least 30 people in my building alone
that have been hacking Perl for years who wouldn't get this. And a "well
they don't know what's going on" argument doesn't work. Not everyone is
a Perl expert.
Besides, you're telling me this:
foo(list bar())
is *LESS* intuitive? I really don't buy that.
-Nate
