>>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> implicit references internally. Consider how you'd implement
LW> push(@foo, @bar);
LW> vs
LW> push(@foo, \@bar);
LW> If you defer the decision to flatten into the function, then you have
LW> to distinguish those two kinds of reference.
I think they can/should be easily distinguished.
&foo( \@foo) #1
vs.
&foo( @foo ) #2
Inside the foo, @_ would have in case 1 one item in the list
and in case 2, a magical internal lazy interator would be on the stack.
So that push(@foo, @bar) would be an iterator (but since this is internal
special handling can be done. Whild the push(@foo, \@foo) would be the
normal single whatzit processing.
But then again, I'm probably missing something.
<chaim>
--
Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
