Uri Guttman wrote: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Why does it work that way? > > people wanted access the the actual values of a hash when doing > foreach ( values %hash ) > so they can mung them. Yes; but the question isn't really "why", it's "how". Apparently chop() is specialized internally to detect the hashness of its argument, in a way that can't be expressed by a prototype. -- John Porter So take a pointed stick and touch Piggy's eyes He's gonna turn and leave you a big surprise
- RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! root
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! abigail
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! abigail
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Casey R. Tweten
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! John Porter
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! abigail
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Bart Lateur