On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 10:39:36AM -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote: > "Using" might be an interesting alternative Reminds me of BASIC :-) > What if the hash keys we want to use are not valid scalar names? For example, > I've had keys like "total - female" as keys, but using the ^ syntax > would fail on this... Good point. But who's to say that ^{total - female} doesn't work? -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: pascal-like "with" was Re:... Dave Storrs
- Re: pascal-like "with" was Re: Default fileh... Clayton Scott
- Re: pascal-like "with" was Re: Default ... Dave Storrs
- implied pascal-like "with" or "express&... David L. Nicol
- Re: implied pascal-like "with" or "... Jeremy Howard
- Re: implied pascal-like "with" or &... David L. Nicol
- Re: implied pascal-like "with" ... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: implied pascal-like "with&qu... David L. Nicol
- Re: implied pascal-like "with&qu... Dave Storrs
- Re: implied pascal-like "wi... Brian Wheeler
- Re: implied pascal-like "wi... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: implied pascal-like "wi... Dave Storrs
- PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NEW BACKSLASH ... David L. Nicol
- Re: implied pascal-like "wi... Ken Fox
- Re: implied pascal-like "wi... Jeremy Howard
- Re: implied pascal-like "wi... David L. Nicol
- Re: implied pascal-like "wi... Ken Fox
- Re: implied pascal-like "with" ... Damian Conway
- Re: implied pascal-like "with&qu... Jeremy Howard
- Re: implied pascal-like "with&qu... Damian Conway
- Re: implied pascal-like "with&qu... James Mastros