On 25 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Personally I don't like the C< is Hashed::ByValues > because it smacks
> of spooky action at a distance; I much prefer my notion of C< %h{*@x}
> = 1>. And in Perl 6 I have the horrible feeling that C<< %h = (*@x =>
> 1) >> would expand to C<< %h = (1,2,3 => 1) >>, leading to a hash that
> looks like C< { 1 => 2, 3 => 1 } >. Or does the pair constructor
> force a scalar context on its lhs?
Well, it depends on precedence. And I think unary * should have higher
precedence than =>, which, mind you, is not a funky comma anymore.
And if not, that's very wrong, and we shoul do something about it.
Luke
