Nathan Torkington wrote: > 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. So? Perl's not like that. Perl is diagonal. And this is just another corner being cut. I have a list of stuff that looks a lot like a hash: ( foo => 1, bar => 2 ) Now, gol dern it, I want to treat it like a hash. I want *perl* to let me treat it like a hash. Directly! If not keys ( foo => 1, bar => 2 ) then keys %( foo => 1, bar => 2 ) Or *something*. > I think the message is: Don't put time into the parser when your > effort could better be spent in the optimizer. Who "you"? This is the -language list. -- John Porter We're building the house of the future together.
- 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
- Re: functions that deal wi... John Porter