At 07:19 PM 8/9/00 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote: >Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > So? It's an op. Lists can be passed any way we want. :) > >In what respect would that be different from a function? >(cf. RFC 26). Ops are lower level. (I'm not talking about, say, the localtime op, but rather things like the dereference or newstate op) Though honestly I don't much care if this is all visible to perl code. Some oddball smacking about of @_, I expect. Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Mike Pastore
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Mike Pastore
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Michael Mathews
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. John Porter
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. John Porter
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Graham Barr
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 58 (v1) C<chomp()> changes. Bart Lateur