On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Johan Vromans <jvromans@squirrel.nl> wrote: > Father Chrysostomos <sprout@cpan.org> writes: > > > Ricardo Signes wrote: > >> « $x->@* acts exactly like @$x » is the rule. "Except in > interpolation" would > >> be the exception. > > > > So we allow "$x->@*" and "$$x->@*" and "$x->$*->@*". > > > > What about the brace forms? How far does the equivalance of "@{...}" > > and "...->@*" hold? > > > > "@{$foo}" --> "$foo->@*" > > "@{$foo[0]}" --> "$foo[0]->@*" > > "@{*$foo}" ??? > > "@{$foo->**}" --> "$foo->**->@*" > > "@{$foo->()}" --> "$foo->()->@*" > > "@{$foo++}" --> "$foo++->@*" > > "@{$foo ? bar() : []}" => "$foo ? bar() : []->@*" > > Which makes me think, once more, do we actualle *need* postfix > dereference? Does it provide anything we cannot do already, albeit at > the cost of an extra pair of braces? In other words: is it worth the > effort? > > -- Johan FWIW, I would never use (this incarnation of) postfix dereference. I'm sorry, but to my eye $foo->@* is not prettier than @{$foo}. And I understand the latter. That is to say, with the latter, I know exactly where the entity being dereferenced begins and ends. With the former--phew--you got me. Regards, Brad Thread Previous | Thread Next