Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2021
On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 21:53:27 -0400
"Ricardo Signes" <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote:
> No, this is *not* the same as writing @array or %hash. For one
> thing, when the \ operator is applied to a slice, it produces a list
> of references to individual elements, not a reference to the
> container. Similarly,
As does \(@arr)
eval: my @arr = (4,5,6); my @refs = \(@arr); [ @refs ]
[ \'4', \'5', \'6' ]
(the final [] there just to make it print in "list context")
> @array[*]; # equivalent to @array[ 0 .. $#array ];
> @hash{*}; # equivalent to @hash{ keys %hash };
These two seem borderline unnecessary - as rvalues they are just @array
and %hash. You do point out the way that assigning into @array[*] as an
lvalue won't grow the array - I guess for that usecase it could be
interesting.
> %hash{*}; # equivalent to %hash{ keys %hash };
Isn't this values %hash ?
> %array[*]; # equivalent to %array[ 0 .. $#array ];
This one is the only one I can see that appears to add a
sufficiently-useful ability to justify the syntax. It has a certain
neatness if you consider adding the others.
Can we further imagine that these would also be allowed on refs via
arrows?
foreach my ($idx, $val) ( $aref->%[*] ) {
...
}
That's a 6-symbol punctuation operator.
I remain unconvinced.
Overall, I still feel that it will stomp on less future syntax and be
"friendlier" if we spelled this "enum" or "enumerate" or somesuch
keyword, instead:
foreach my ($idx, $val) ( enum @array ) { ... }
foreach my ($idx, $val) ( enum $aref->@* ) { ... }
Perl already has a reputation for being dense punctuation soup - can we
not make it worse?
--
Paul "LeoNerd" Evans
leonerd@leonerd.org.uk | https://metacpan.org/author/PEVANS
http://www.leonerd.org.uk/ | https://www.tindie.com/stores/leonerd/
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next