John Porter writes: > I suppose that's true. But why would > %( foo => 1, bar => 2 ) > be "working harder" than > %{{ foo => 1, bar => 2 }} > ??? It's few keystrokes and would be a less tricky concept > to remember. It's a new syntax, not orthogonal to anything we already have. The number of people wanting to coopt %{ or %( or %[ is truly frightening. I think the message is: Don't put time into the parser when your effort could better be spent in the optimizer. Nat
- Re: functions that deal with hash should be more libera Jerrad Pierce
- Re: functions that deal with hash should be more li... Jerrad Pierce
- Re: functions that deal with hash should be mor... Casey R. Tweten
- Re: functions that deal with hash should be mor... John Porter
- Re: functions that deal with hash should be... Tom Christiansen
- Re: functions that deal with hash shoul... John Porter
- Re: functions that deal with hash ... Nathan Torkington
- Re: functions that deal with h... John Porter
- Re: functions that deal wi... Nathan Torkington
- Re: functions that deal wi... Casey R. Tweten
- Re: functions that deal wi... Tom Christiansen
- Re: functions that deal wi... Casey R. Tweten
- Re: functions that deal wi... Tom Christiansen
- Re: functions that deal wi... Nathan Torkington
- Re: functions that deal wi... John Porter
- Re: functions that deal wi... Buddha Buck
- Re: functions that deal wi... John Porter