> Good distinctions. So, if I'm reading you right, this won't work?
>
> @oldpath = $tree->path('L','R') = ('R');
It means:
@oldpath = $tree->patch('L','R')->OP_=('R');
So it will work fine, if that's what you intended. :-)
> Basically, the lvalue sub by your definition is just a "stupid" accessor
> that returns an lvalue. @oldpath, by your definition, would have to
> contain ('R').
Unless some OP_= method was overloaded somewhere in the expression.
(And it *might* be ARRAY::OP_= that was overloaded! ;-)
> My feeling is that $tree->path should be able to do anything it wants,
> including returning a different value than was passed in. Otherwise, you
> can't chain stuff together above, which is potentially really useful
> (especially for us really lazy types).
>
> I'd like to see both supported, but this does seem to require different
> mechanisms. Maybe some combination of :lvalue and lreturn could
> accomplish this?
Then propose it. Personally, I think it's dead wrong, but what does that
mean? *Larry* may love it.
Damian
