On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, R. Dresens <chrom...@nedlinux.nl> wrote: > Yes, but aren't captures somehow replacements for references in > general... and therefore also array references? The reason why I > assume that is that I (wrongly?) expected a "real" 'Array()' when I > used the `\` prefix in an expression such as `...@x`. �...@x` is an > array, but ` \...@x` has become a 'Capture()' in recent rakudo > releases, not an 'Array()' anymore. Hence my assumption.
Captures in Perl 6 are needed much less than references in Perl 5. That's a feature, not a bug. References often make things more confusing that they should be. You shouldn't need captures in most Perl 6 code. > ...but an "anoymous array" (if I may call it that?) assigned to `$x` > is still an 'Array()'. So I'm really confused about the > intricate difference between... > > my $x = [1, 2, 3] > > ...and... > > my @y = (1, 2, 3); my $x = \...@y The latter should be written as my @y = (1, 2, 3); my $x = @y; Yeah, that requires some unlearning of Perl 5 idioms. $x and @Y are indeed mostly the same, except that @y acts listy and $x not. > ...apart from the question whether it has really an impact on > practical code. I'm more or less trying to create a model of perl 6 > in my mind right now, and I really wonder how to explain this > behavior. I think the crucial step it to stop thinking you need the \ operator for anything until you really need it. Leon
