At 09:24 AM 8/9/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > unless you think we should require arrays to be passed by reference.
> >
> > It's an op. Arrays can be passed in any way we want.
>
>But as I already pointed out, we don't want to pass just arrays,
>we need to be able to pass any LIST.
So? It's an op. Lists can be passed any way we want. :)
If iterators and lazy doohickeys get added to perl (and I think they're
pretty keen, personally), then lists will need to become semi-first-class
things under the hood anyway.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Mike Pastore
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Mike Pastore
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Michael Mathews
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. John Porter
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. John Porter
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Graham Barr
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Ted Ashton
