Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Mark J. Reed"):
> On 8/17/06, David Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > $a=[1, 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > > $c=[1, 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > > $d=[1, 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > >
> > >So $a, $c, and $d may all have the same *value*
> > >(or "snapshot", when evaluated all the way down
> > >through nesting and references), i.e. they might
> > >be eqv, but only $a and $c are === because they
> > >have the same contents [unevaluated contents]
> > >and $d doesn't.
>
> In this case, it seems like [===] @$a, @$c would do what you want,
> yes? It would return true, while [===] @$a,@$d would return false...
>
> In the general case - well, I think the thread demonstrates that it's
> hard to define a general case for what you want to do. Based on your
> example, I assumed you wanted one-level dereferencing, regardless of
> the contents. But it sounds like what you want is infinite
> dereferencing as long as the referent is anonymous, and no
> dereferencing if the referent is a named variable?
Surely that's a meaningless distinction? A named variable can become
anonymous if its name goes out of scope; an anon can be bound to a name.
Just to make sure I've got all this straight:
=:= compares names
=== compares containers
eqv compares values
So given an array @W,
my @X := @W; # @X =:= @W
my @Y = @W; # @Y === @W but @Y !=:= @W
my @Z = @W.clone; # @Z eqv @W but @Z !=== @W
? This seems like a useful set of distinctions to me...
<lurk>
Ben
--
The cosmos, at best, is like a rubbish heap scattered at random.
Heraclitus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
