>> keys %HASH = LIST;
>> is really
>> @HASH{ LIST } = ();
>Sure. Would you have any great objection to adding the alternative syntax?
Nope.
--tom
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions from set theory to manipu... Gael Pegliasco
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions from set theory to m... Jeremy Howard
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions from set theory ... Gael Pegliasco
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions from set the... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions from set... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions fro... Gael Pegliasco
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions fro... Buddha Buck
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions fro... John Porter
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions fro... Tom Christiansen
- proto-RFC: keys(HASH) as lvalue (w... John Porter
- Re: proto-RFC: keys(HASH) as lvalue... Tom Christiansen
- Re: proto-RFC: keys(HASH) as lvalue... Bart Lateur
- Re: proto-RFC: keys(HASH) as lvalue... John Porter
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions fro... Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions fro... Gael Pegliasco
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions fro... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions fro... Gael Pegliasco
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions fro... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions fro... Gael Pegliasco
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions fro... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions fro... Chaim Frenkel
