Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > "GL" == Glenn Linderman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> GL> Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> >> ($foo, $baz, @bar) = (1,(2,3),4) # $foo = 1 $baz=2, @bar=(3,4)
> >>
> >> Actually, looking at it like that makes it an ugly situation. The 'new'
> >> expectation would be to have it
> "GL" == Glenn Linderman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
GL> Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>> ($foo, $baz, @bar) = (1,(2,3),4) # $foo = 1 $baz=2, @bar=(3,4)
>>
>> Actually, looking at it like that makes it an ugly situation. The 'new'
>> expectation would be to have it become
>> # $foo=1 $baz=2 @bar=(4)
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> At 02:25 PM 8/24/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>> But
>>
>> ($foo, $baz, @bar) = (1,(2,3),4) # $foo = 1 $baz=2, @bar=(3,4)
>>
>> Actually, looking at it like that makes it an ugly situation. The 'new'
>> expectation would be to have it
Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> ($foo, $baz, @bar) = (1,(2,3),4) # $foo = 1 $baz=2, @bar=(3,4)
>
> Actually, looking at it like that makes it an ugly situation. The 'new'
> expectation would be to have it become
> # $foo=1 $baz=2 @bar=(4)
Actually? How about it becoming
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>At 02:25 PM 8/24/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>>But
>>
>>($foo, $baz, @bar) = (1,(2,3),4) # $foo = 1 $baz=2, @bar=(3,4)
>>
>>Actually, looking at it like that makes it an ugly situation. The 'new'
>>expectation would be to have it become
>>
At 02:25 PM 8/24/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>But
>
>($foo, $baz, @bar) = (1,(2,3),4) # $foo = 1 $baz=2, @bar=(3,4)
>
>Actually, looking at it like that makes it an ugly situation. The 'new'
>expectation would be to have it become
> # $foo=1 $baz=2 @bar=(4)
Woul
I'm missing what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that
$foo = @bar no longer mean ($foo = scalar(@bar)) == 3 ?
I wasn't suggesting going that far. Just a little more DWIM.
So that
($foo, @bar, $baz) = (1,2,3) # $foo = 1 @bar=(2,3), $baz = undef
# o
Chaim Frenkel writes:
: LW> P.S. I think we *could* let @foo and %bar return an object ref in scalar
: LW> context, as long as the object returned overloads itself to behave as
: LW> arrays and hashes currently do in scalar context.
:
: Isn't this an internals issue?
Not completely. The scalar
> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> Dan Sugalski writes:
LW> : And do we want to consider making this (and its ilk) Do The Right Thing?
LW> :
LW> :(@foo, @bar) = (@bar, @foo);
LW> We certainly want to consider it, though perhaps not in -internals.
LW> You can talk about
Dan Sugalski writes:
: And do we want to consider making this (and its ilk) Do The Right Thing?
:
:(@foo, @bar) = (@bar, @foo);
We certainly want to consider it, though perhaps not in -internals.
You can talk about passing @bar and @foo around as lazy lists, and
maybe even do lazy list-flatt
10 matches
Mail list logo
