Re: functions that deal with hash should be more liberal

[Chaim Frenkel]

>>>>> "NT" == Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

NT> Casey R. Tweten writes:
>> Wow.  Now that, that, is lame.  You're saying that keys() expects
>> it's first argument to begin with a %?  Why should it care what it's
>> argumen begins with?

NT> The keys function changes its arguments' data structure.  keys resets
NT> the each iterator (see the documentation for these functions).

Wouldn't this have to change to support iterators and threading.

>> All functions recieve their arguments in a LIST via @_.

NT> The hash functions are prototyped as \%, meaning they are passed a
NT> reference to the hash named as an argument.  The reference-taking:
NT>  * permits them to change the data structures
NT>  * is faster (one value, not all the key/value pairs)

What if keys were extended to operate on arrays? Then keys $foo might
be an acceptable extension.

<chaim>
-- 
Chaim Frenkel                                        Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                                               +1-718-236-0183