On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 10:39:42AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> 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.
And I guess every other operator is specialized internally as well?
$ perl -wle '%h = qw /foo bar baz qux/; map {s/.$//} %h; $, = " "; print %h'
foo ba baz qu
$
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! 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
