Dave Whipp wrote: > Also, I'm a bit confused By the idea that the invocant is obtained by a > scalar dereference, because I know that arrays and hashes can be > invocants, too. E.g. @a.pop. So, If I do: > > my $args = \(@a:); > my $b = $$args; # @a as a scalar > my @c = @$args; # empty list > my @d := $$args; # bound to @a
That is totally correct. "Scalar" here really means "any one thing", any Array is but one kind of one-thing. > Is there any way that a deref can determine that the invocant stored in > the capture was placed there using the '@' sigil? Perhpas this leads to > the question of whether there is ever a reason for code to distinguish > between @ invocants and $ invocants. I'm guessing that the answer must > be "no". No. If you really want to flatten at list context the content of invocant, then @$$args will do what you want, though it's a bit heavy. :) Audrey
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
