On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 06:09:40PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> @@ -1367,9 +1367,10 @@
> If you need to force inner context to scalar, we now have convenient
> single-character context specifiers such as + for numbers and ~ for strings:
>
> +$x= g(); # scalar context and g()
> @x[f()] = g(); # list context for f() and g()
> @x[f()] = +g(); # list context for f(), scalar context for g()
> -@x[+f()] = g(); # scalar context for f() and g()
> +@x[+f()] = g(); # scalar context for f(), list context for g()
> # -- see S03 for "SIMPLE" lvalues
>
> @x[f()] = @y[g()]; # list context for f() and g()
> @@ -1377,6 +1378,18 @@
> @x[+f()] = @y[g()]; # scalar context for f(), list context for g()
> @x[f()] = @y[+g()]; # list context for f(), scalar context for g()
>
> +Sigils used as list prefix operators may also be used to force context:
> +
> +@x = $ g(); # scalar context for g()
> +$x = @ g(); # list context for g()
> +$x = % g(); # list context for g() (and coercion to hash)
Given the last paragraph, wouldn't the earlier example be more correctly
described as
@x[f()] = +g(); # list context for f(), number context for g()
and more general example instead be
@x[f()] = $ g(); # list context for f(), scalar context for g()
given that the "obvious" hash analogy of
@x[+f()] = g(); # scalar context for f(), list context for g()
is
%x{+f()} = g(); # number context for f(), list context for g()
and (if I understand context and its coercion correctly) actually that's
probably not what the novice wanted. In that what they probably wanted was
%x{~f()} = g(); # string context for f(), list context for g()
So instead of emphasising + and ~, it feels to me that that is less to
remember (and less to teach) if the examples were prominent in their use of
(generic) scalar context:
%x{$ f()} = g(); # scalar context for f(), list context for g()
Nicholas Clark
