Benjamin Golberg writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> >
> > > David Storrs wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thinking about it, I'd rather see lvalue slices become a nicer version
> > > > of C<splice()>.
> > > >
> > > > my @start = (0..5);
> > > > my @a = @start;
> > > >
> > > > @a[1..3] = qw/ a b c d e /;
> > > > print @a; # 0 a b c d e 4 5
> > >
> > > What would happen if I used 1,2,3 instead of 1..3? Would it do the
> > > same thing?
> >
> > Of course.
> >
> > > I wanna know what happens if I do:
> > >
> > > @a[0,2,4] = qw/ a b c d e /;
> >
> > It would probably do the same as in Perl 5; the same thing as:
> >
> > @a[0,2,4] = << a b c >>;
> >
> > (those << >> brackets are new shorthand for qw, not that qw is going
> > anywhere)
>
> Hmm... so, if I were to do:
>
> @x = map int(rand(6)), 1..3;
> @[EMAIL PROTECTED] = "a" .. "e";
> print @a.length;
>
> Then, if the three integers in @x are consecutive, @a grows, but
> otherwise it doesn't?
You know what would be nice? If I actually read what we were talking
about (which can be seen at the top of this message %-).
In general, (partially) because of this, I don't think slice splicing
is a good idea; that's what the C<splice> function is for. The idea
of lexical expansion is good, and slice splicing kills that. For
example:
@a[1..3] = << a b c d e >>
Can be expanded in people's heads to:
(@a[1], @a[2], @a[3]) = << a b c d e >>
And I don't think that's something we want to get rid of.
Luke
> --
> $a=24;split//,240513;s/\B/ => /for@@=qw(ac ab bc ba cb ca
> );{push(@b,$a),($a-=6)^=1 for 2..$a/6x--$|;print "[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ]\n";((6<=($a-=6))?$a+=$_[$a%6]-$a%6:($a=pop @b))&&redo;}
