>And hashes are assembled just like lists anyways:
> %hash = list get_key_vals;
> %hash = (key, val, key2, val2); # same thing
Eh? List context is conferred by the % on the LHS. You need
no redundant listification redundancy there.
>But no, I certainly wouldn't suggest going down the path of 1000
>explicit contexts. Bad. Implicit context good! But a "list" helper
>function like a "scalar" helper function would solve a lot of common
>problems.
No, a list helper function would *not* solve a lot of *common* problems:
There's no C<list> function corresponding to C<scalar> since,
in practice, one never needs to force evaluation in a list
context. That's because any operation that wants R<LIST> already
provides a list context to its list arguments for free.
It's not a "common problem".
Now, you *can* force list context, but I (and Larry, one of whose
text I just quoted) don't see it as common, so it's not worth the
word. But it's not impossible, either, as you can use either the
construct @{ [ ... ] } if you're in a string and trying to interpolate
some function call, or simply through ()=... otherwise.
Education is a wonderful thing.
--tom
