On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:26:38 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
I agree with both of you. It would be nice if @$ precedence worked as Bart
specified, but I still think that arrays should be arrays.
The problem is that
$name = "myarray";
@$name = (1,2,3);
print @$name[0,1]; # 1,2
Is very
On 20 Sep 2000 04:06:02 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
Ilya Zakharevich brought up the issue of a potential problem with
objects which use blessed list references as their internal structure,
and their use as indices. Given a Bignum class, which stores its
(external) value internally as a
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:59:47 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Yeah, I for one think %hashes should be interpolated exactly like
@arrays. It's simple and consistent.
Simple and consistent would be behaviour like
"@{[%hash]}"
However, convenient it is not, getting all key/value pairs in one
On 17 Sep 2000 23:54:05 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
What about formating the output as a value that can be used by eval?
%hash = (a = 1, b = 'the world');
print "%{hash}\n";
('a' = 1, 'b'= 'the world')
So, what about arrays? Or scalars?
We have Data::Dumper for that.
--
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 22:58:05 -0400, John Porter wrote:
keys %hash = @things;
is defined as being equivalent to
@hash{ @things } = ();
Two more details to think about:
%hash = ( b = 'beta', d = 'delta' );
keys %hash = qw(a b c);
What happens to the values that
