HaloO,
Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
So...:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; # Reference to array, of course
\(@array); # same
\(((@array))); # same
\(1,2,3); # Reference to a list promoted to an array (!)
\(((1,2,3))); # same
The thing that is unclear to me here and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; # List of references to @array's elements
\*(((@array))); # same
\*(1,2,3); # List of references to @array's elements
\*(((1,2,3))); # same
here is if you can write through the ref into a automagically created
array or not. I would like to maintain it as error case. Actually I
don't like to think of \(1,2,3) as array at all. Note that * is a no-op
in *(1,2,3) because it is already a list. Hence the cases should have the
same meaning.
Should [\] 1,2,3; be allowed? I know \ is no infix op and as such not
amenable to the list reducing itemizer. But it could allow the types
\ (1,2,3); # List of Ref of Int (which is a Code subtype)
[\] 1,2,3; # Ref of List of Int (which is an Item subtype)
But that might be too far fetched. Even the subtyping of List below Code
is not confirmed by @Larry.
--
$TSa.greeting := "HaloO"; # mind the echo!
