David Green wrote:
That's true. But it's got me thinking about the connection between
arrays and "associative" arrays. In fact, the user doesn't need to know
that a "hash" is implemented with a hash table, and an "array" isn't;
and nothing stops you from using numbers as hash keys.
I believe L
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 05:47:29PM -0600, David Green wrote:
: On 2004/9/06, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: >Another possibility is that .[] always forces the "normal" view of an
: >array as 0-based, and if you want non-0-based arrays you have to use
: >the .{} interface instead, on the assumption that str
Larry Wall wrote:
> David Green wrote:
> : And if you restrict your "hash" to numeric keys, Perl could notice and
> : optimise it into an array. (Or integer keys, or positive integers, or
> : a consecutive range of positive ints)
>
> What exactly do you mean by "could notice"? The point a
On Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 02:16:50PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Funny you should mention that, especially considering the (relatively)
: recent discussion of revamping "sort", and noting that providing an
: "ordering" for a hash would essentially be the same as providing the hash
: with a "default
