On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Stuart Cook wrote:
On 6/1/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Should {} be an empty hash rather than an empty code?
Given that an empty hashref is probably much more useful than an empty
block, I propose that {} be an empty hash and {;} be an empty
On 6/2/05, "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Why did we change { %hash } from making a shallow copy of a hash to
> > the code that returns %hash?
>
> Sorry, I don't understand this question. Do you want 'shallow copy'
> to mean 'take a ref'? Or Parrot/Pugs
Luke Palmer wrote:
Should {} be an empty hash rather than an empty code?
Does it matter? More interesting is the question what it returns
or evaluates to if it's a block. Actually with my idea of List
beeing a subtype of Code the parse time recognition of blocks
as List of Pair h
On 6/1/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should {} be an empty hash rather than an empty code?
Given that an empty hashref is probably much more useful than an empty
block, I propose that {} be an empty hash and {;} be an empty block.
This mirrors the fact that (AFAIK) { $_
Two questions:
Should {} be an empty hash rather than an empty code?
Why did we change { %hash } from making a shallow copy of a hash to
the code that returns %hash?
Luke
