> > @bar[$foo]; # A
> > %bar{$foo}; # B
> > @bar{$foo}; # C
> > %bar[$foo]; # D
> >
> You forgot
>
> $bar[$foo]; # $bar is an array reference
> $bar{$foo}; # $bar is a hash reference
I can't argue with that.
My vote is now against conflating [] and {}.
-------
Please bear with me just a (hoefully little) longer.
Ok, why not deprecate %foo and always use @
instead and have [] and {} represent two indexing
name spaces?
In perl 6 experiments, and perl 7, you'll have % to
play with.
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Damian Conway
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Michael G Schwern
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Buddha Buck
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Damian Conway
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation David L. Nicol
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Bart Lateur
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
