On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 09:40:46PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: %foo<bar>
:
: is really
:
: %foo{'bar'}
:
: and
: :foo<bar>
:
: is actually
:
: :foo('bar')
But it's not--it's actually
:foo{'bar'}
What's happening is that :foo is using the subscript syntax oddly.
: naturally,
:
: :foo<bar>, 'baz'
:
: is
:
: :foo('bar'), 'baz'
Nope,
:foo{'bar'}, 'baz'
: but is
:
: reverse<bar>, 'baz'
:
: then
:
: reverse('bar'), 'baz'
No, that's
reverse{'bar'}, 'baz'
which makes sense only if reverse returns something that
can be hash subscripted.
: ? And if that is so, then is
:
: reverse <bar>, 'baz'
:
: any different?
That's the same as
reverse qw/bar/, 'baz'
Larry
