Hi,
Juerd wrote:
> Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-10-10 19:59 (+0200):
>> my @args = ( (a => 1), b => 2 ); # is sugar for
>> my @args = ( (a => 1), (b => 2) );
>
> Please, no. Please let the pair constructor be =>, not (=>). There is
> really no need for this operator to consist of both infix and
> circumfix parts. Please leave the parens for grouping (and in calls:
> breaking recognition).
Err, of course! The parens around "b => 2" should make clear that "b =>
2" is not a named argument, but a pair. Outside of calls, the parens
are only for grouping:
my @args = (b => 2); # same as
my @args = ((b => 2)); # same as
my @args = ((((b => 2))));
--Ingo
