There was some talks about hash keys autoquoting and barewords.. later are
gone and former is disambigued by forcing to write %hash{'key'} or
%hashÂkey ( as opposite to %hash{key} which is now %hash{key()} )..
right?..
that's almost ok to me, if there's any hope that  will have a _standard_
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 03:41:41AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: There was some talks about hash keys autoquoting and barewords.. later are
: gone and former is disambigued by forcing to write %hash{'key'} or
: %hash«key» ( as opposite to %hash{key} which is now %hash{key()} )..
: right?.
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:00:44 -0700, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 03:41:41AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: There was some talks about hash keys autoquoting and barewords.. later
are
: gone and former is disambigued by forcing to write %hash{'key'} or
: %hashÂkey
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,
Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
I wonder about mixed synax:
%hash = ( :keyÂvalueÂ
:key2ÂvalueÂ
:key3
key4 => 'value',
'key5','value',
Âkey6 value key7 value )
Did I make mistakes here?
That depends. I asked Damian about this a few weeks ago. He said
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> strange, but :shift«value» looks a little more noisy to me than
>> shift => 'value',
>
> For some reason, it looks that way to me, too.
Me three.
> Perhaps:
>
> :shift« value »
>
> I *think* that's better...
To me, that's even worse. My brain se
