HaloO Juerd,
you wrote:
(This illustrates my feeling about @foo[] being the same as @foo. It feels inconsistent with &foo() not being &foo.)
I have the same feeling. But I would like @foo[] to mean something else
than plain @foo which should be---hmm, how shall I put that---a underefenced reference to whatever hides behind the ref|variable|name.
The [] then does the deref like () derefs &foo.
Regards, -- TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)
