Glenn Linderman writes: : Why not : : @foo = @( a + b ); # element by element add of @a and @b I expect that's be written: @foo := @a + @b; where the := says to treat the left side as a prototype, and a bare array in a prototype is going to put scalar context on the right side, and a + in scalar context is going to do the right thing with arrays in scalar context. It's possible that a bare = could be made to work too, but it implies copying a list, where := only implies copying a pointer. Larry
- Re: Tying & Overloading John Porter
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Re: Tying & Overloading John Porter
- Re: Tying & Overloading Dan Sugalski
- Re: Tying & Overloading John Porter
- Re: Tying & Overloading Dan Sugalski
- Re: Tying & Overloading John Porter
- Re: Tying & Overloading Dan Sugalski
- Re: Tying & Overloading Austin Hastings
- Re: Tying & Overloading Glenn Linderman
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Re: Tying & Overloading Simon Cozens
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Re: Tying & Overloading John Siracusa
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Re: Tying & Overloading Nathan Wiger
- Re: Tying & Overloading Larry Wall
- Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Nathan Wiger
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) John Siracusa
- Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading) Branden