On 8/17/06, David Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $a=[1, 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > $c=[1, 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > $d=[1, 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > >So $a, $c, and $d may all have the same *value* >(or "snapshot", when evaluated all the way down >through nesting and references), i.e. they might >be eqv, but only $a and $c are === because they >have the same contents [unevaluated contents] >and $d doesn't.
In this case, it seems like [===] @$a, @$c would do what you want, yes? It would return true, while [===] @$a,@$d would return false... In the general case - well, I think the thread demonstrates that it's hard to define a general case for what you want to do. Based on your example, I assumed you wanted one-level dereferencing, regardless of the contents. But it sounds like what you want is infinite dereferencing as long as the referent is anonymous, and no dereferencing if the referent is a named variable? That doesn't seem like a common enough case to warrant sugar to me; what am I missing? -- Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
