Alexey Trofimenko writes: > >Arguably, the :shiftÂvalue syntax makes it easier to quote both > >sides of a pair, so perhaps there's a little less need for an > >autoquoting =>. But I think that generating non-quoted keys for > >subscripting happens a lot more often than non-quoted keys for pairs, > >so I'm inclined to leave the autoquoting of => in for now. > > > >Larry > > strange, but :shiftÂvalue looks a little more noisy to me than shift => > 'value',
For some reason, it looks that way to me, too. Perhaps: :shift value  I *think* that's better... > > oh.. I have a question. > in > > %hash := { :keyÂvalue :key2Âvalue :key3} > > there's no need to put comma between, right? Right. > I wonder about mixed synax: > > %hash = ( :keyÂvalue > :key2Âvalue > :key3 > key4 => 'value', > 'key5','value', > Âkey6 value key7 value ) > > Did I make mistakes here? I don't think so. > if all was right, than I can figure that :key Âvalue (with whitespace > between) is outlawed.. Bad Thing for people who like to write pairs > in columns. Well, not necessarily: :foo bar  :ziph zam  :split spork  Although I'll admit that looks a little strange. Anyway, I suspect I'll still be writing hashes perl5-style, while I'll use the new style for named arguments. > ah.. sorry about messing up all question in one post, but I have one more:) > if key could be of any type, not only strings, than what will be with > numeric keys? would they be converted to strings automatically? It's Perl: what's the difference? Luke