On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Joel E. Denny wrote: > Ok, here's a less verbose alternative: > > a(name1): b c() d(@name2) > > For a, the value and location are $name1 and @name2.
I meant $name1 and @name1, of course. > For b, they are $b and @b. > For c, the value is declared unused. > > So far, these are old ideas I've discussed at length before. What's new > is that, for d, the value is also declared unused, but the location can be > referenced with @name2. This last usage may not be common, but I think it > ought to be possible.
