Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
strange, but :shift«value» looks a little more noisy to me than
shift = 'value',
For some reason, it looks that way to me, too.
Me three.
Perhaps:
:shift« value »
I *think* that's better...
To me, that's even worse. My brain sees spaces
Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
I wonder about mixed synax:
%hash = ( :keyvalue
:key2value
:key3
key4 = 'value',
'key5','value',
key6 value key7 value )
Did I make mistakes here?
That depends. I asked Damian about this a few weeks ago. He said
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:00:44 -0700, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 03:41:41AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: There was some talks about hash keys autoquoting and barewords.. later
are
: gone and former is disambigued by forcing to write %hash{'key'} or
: %hashkey (
Alexey Trofimenko writes:
Arguably, the :shiftvalue syntax makes it easier to quote both
sides of a pair, so perhaps there's a little less need for an
autoquoting =. But I think that generating non-quoted keys for
subscripting happens a lot more often than non-quoted keys for pairs,
so I'm
There was some talks about hash keys autoquoting and barewords.. later are
gone and former is disambigued by forcing to write %hash{'key'} or
%hashkey ( as opposite to %hash{key} which is now %hash{key()} )..
right?..
that's almost ok to me, if there's any hope that will have a _standard_
