Re: RFC - Hashing PMC's

2002-07-25 Thread Luke Palmer
On 25 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Personally I don't like the C< is Hashed::ByValues > because it smacks > of spooky action at a distance; I much prefer my notion of C< %h{*@x} > = 1>. And in Perl 6 I have the horrible feeling that C<< %h = (*@x => > 1) >> would expand to C<< %h = (1,2,

Re: RFC - Hashing PMC's

2002-07-25 Thread Luke Palmer
On 25 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 25 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > Personally I don't like the C< is Hashed::ByValues > because it smacks > > > of spooky action at a distance; I much prefer my notion of C< %h{*@x} > > > =

Re: RFC - Hashing PMC's

2002-07-25 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 03:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > my @x is Hashed::ByValues = (1,2,3); > > %h = (@x => 1); > > @x[1] += 4; > > Personally I don't like the C< is Hashed::ByValues > because it smacks > of spooky action at a distance;