* Father Chrysostomos <sprout@cpan.org> [2013-08-13T21:16:27] > I have added it, applied the tests to the branch, and fixed a few > typos in the test script. I also think, and I imagine this will raise some hackles, that we should support this syntax in interpolation. That is: $x->@* should be co-equal with @$x, which includes "$x->@*" acting as "@$x". So, there is an obvious backward compatibility concern. Users may have written: "Some sort of $foo->@*" "Or maybe $x->$*" <-- would issue $* deprecation and mean "$x->" . undef "Or $x->@{....}" ...or a number of other structures. In almost all cases, I feel that we have nothing to fear. The first example, really, is going to be a non-issue. Unfortunately, the third most likely is: "$x->@{ \@b }" What does "everybody else" think about permitting this? Presumably we would need to hide it behind a feature flag, unfortunately. > Now we just need documentation. I will look at producing some, if no one beats me to it. -- rjbsThread Previous | Thread Next