Re: functions that deal with hash should be more liberal

[Tom Christiansen]

>: No.  keys() expects something that starts with a %, not
>: something that starts with a &.

>Wow.  Now that, that, is lame.  You're saying that keys() expects it's first
>argument to begin with a %?  Why should it care what it's argumen begins with?

You're just now figuring this out?  Really?

>All functions recieve their arguments in a LIST via @_.  Since &func, in the
>above example, returns a LIST, that LIST should just be passed on.  I have to
>say, caring about what the argument looks like is bad news.

So, you're saying to dispense with prototypes, even in the core, and leave
us with the slowest language known to man?

I don't see that flying.

--tom