"Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:56:11PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> > Also, just wondering:
>> >
>> > $_[_][EMAIL PROTECTED] _=_0_-_
>> >
>> > does that work the way I expect it to?
>>
>> Dunno, what do you expect it to do?. To my way of thinking there's
>> going to be a syntax error at the third '_'. But I'm not entirely
>> certain of that.
> To me, the third '_' seems like it'd be an unambiguous case of the concatenation
> operator. I still can't parse it, however; it looks like an attempt to
> modify a non-lvalue:
>
> $_.[_()] _ @_._() _= _0_() - _()
>
> That is:
> 1. Invoke the subroutine _ (name resolved in current scope)
> 2. Dereference the variable $_, yielding an array reference.
> 3. Retrieve the element of the referenced array whose index is
> the result of step 1.
> 4. Invoke the method _ on the array @_.
> 5. Concatenate the results of steps 3 and 4
> 6. Invoke the subroutine _0_
> 7. Invoke the _ again (or retrieve the cached result from step 1)
> 8. Subtract #7 from #6
> 9. Append the result of step 8 to contents of the lvalue
> which is the result of step 5.
>
> This is where my interpretation fails because the result of step 5
> is not an lvalue.
How do you know that? '_' could be a method on its LHS that returns
and object that responds to _=. But generally, I think it's weird.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
