Dan Sugalski wrote: > > assoc( %h, 'foo', 'bar' ); > > Because it's conceptually clearer. You've more clues to what's going > on--the syntax is rather specific, and more distinct. The function call > method's much more general, and has fewer contextual clues as to what it's > doing. Generality good. Besides, $h assoc 'foo' => 'bar'; if one were inclined to exploit the indirect object syntax. (And assuming highlander types...) -- John Porter
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (stringifying comma) wit... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (stringifying comma) wit... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (stringifying comma) wit... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (stringifying comma) wit... John Porter
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (stringifying comma... Stephen P. Potter
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (stringifying c... John Porter
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (stringifyi... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (string... John Porter
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace => (s... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace =>... John Porter
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace =>... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace =>... John Porter
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace =>... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace =>... John Porter
- Devils advocacy (Re: RFC 84 ... Nathan Torkington
- Re: Devils advocacy (Re: RFC... John Porter
- Re: Devils advocacy (Re: RFC... iain truskett
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace =>... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace =>... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC 84 (v1) Replace =>... Chaim Frenkel