TSa wrote: > HaloO, > > Daniel Ruoso wrote: >> That being said, we should note that this example looks simple because >> we have almost no lazyness implied (since there's an assignment in the >> first line), every list access requires the evaluation of the flatenning >> of the list. >> >> my @@a = ((),(1,2,3),()); > > Mustn't that be written as (();(1,2,3);()) to produce a three > element outer view?
Aye, it must. >> @a =!= @@a :test; > > BTW, what does the :test mean there? We discussed the option to change our testing syntax from ok(@a =!= @@a, '@a and @aa mean different things') to @a =!= @@a :ok('@a and @aa mean different things') or maybe with :test instead of :ok. I'll open a thread about that in January, in the hope that the outcome will enable me to draft S24. Cheers, Moritz