Front page | perl.perl6.internals |
Postings from July 2002
Luke Palmer <fibonaci@babylonia.flatirons.org> writes:
> On 25 Jul 2002 pdcawley@bofh.org.uk 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 = (1,2,3 => 1) >>, leading to a hash that
> > looks like C< { 1 => 2, 3 => 1 } >. Or does the pair constructor
> > force a scalar context on its lhs?
>
> Well, it depends on precedence. And I think unary * should have higher
> precedence than =>, which, mind you, is not a funky comma anymore.
>
> And if not, that's very wrong, and we shoul do something about it.
But what do commas mean in a hash constructor? Do they even have any
meaning?
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next