>>>>> "DC" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DC> Uri Guttman wrote: DC> Sure. Just as $42 is a shorthand for $/[42], so too $<whatever> is a DC> shorthand for $/<whatever>. >> but then what about the different index bases for $42 and $/[42]? i >> don't think that has been resolved (nor has mixing the $1.1 and $1[1] >> syntaxes). DC> Bear in mind that that reply was posted in haste, late at night, after DC> a long day of teaching. We're lucky it as only off by one! %-) DC> But it does raise an important point: the discrepancy between $42 and DC> $/[41] *is* a great opportunity for off-by-on errors. Previously, DC> however, @Larry have tossed back and forth the possibility of using $0 DC> as the first capture variable so that the indices of $/[0], $/[1], DC> $/[2] match up with the "names" of $0, $1, $2, etc. DC> I think this error--unintentional, I swear!--argues strongly that DC> internal consistency within Perl 6 is more important than historical DC> consistency with Perl 5's $1, $2, $3... i would like them to be consistant too. you could also make $/[1] be the same as $1 and not use $/[0] for a regular grab. then $0 and $/[0] could be used for something special. but just 0 basing them both is fine with me. the key is to align them. we all seem to agree this is a massive off by 1 error waiting to happen. we still haven't seen what @larry has to say about mixing $1[$j] and $1.1 syntaxes (let's assume they both use the same index base). uri -- Uri Guttman ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- http://www.stemsystems.com --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding- Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org
