Jonathan (>): > Per S09, we can write in Perl 6: > > my int @x; > > And the idea is that we get a packed array - conceptually, a single lump of > memory allocated and and storing a bunch of ints contiguously. Contrast this > to: > > my Int @x; > > Where we get an array of scalar containers, each of which is only allowed to > contain an Int (strictly, something that Int.ACCEPTS(...) hands back true > on). > > In the latter case, it's fairly clear how these differ: > > @x[0] = 1; > @x[0] := 1; > > In the first, we look up the container in slot 0 or the array and assign a 1 > into it. In the second, we bind a 1 directly into the slot. There's no > container any more (so any future assignment attempts will fail, for > example). > > With packed arrays, however, I'm less clear what they mean. Since the point > of a packed array is compact storage, there's no chance to actually have > containers. Thus does assignment to a slot in a compact array ever make > sense? There's not a container to look up and store things in. > > While I can happily convince myself that: > > @x[0] := 1; # works, just sticks 1 into the appropriate location > @x[0] = 1; # dies, can't assign when there's no container > > Actually makes sense, I can also somewhat see users not liking it. So my > questions are: > > 1) What semantics would users expect? Is it OK to say "no, you can't assign" > in this case?
By this point in the email, you have me convinced that only binding makes sense in the 'int'-with-a-lowercase-'i' case. So if you ask me, it is OK to say "no, you can't assign" in this case. // Carl
