Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>
> >>>>> "CS" == Christian Soeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> CS> The other problem with arrays is: how do we deal with functions that
> CS> take multiple piddle arguments if they are arrays:
>
> CS> @result = integrate @x, @y, @bounds;
>
> CS> Won't those all be clumped into one big input array? Does it mean we
> CS> have to write
>
> The current thinking in -internals is that list flattening will be delayed
> to as late as possible.
>
> One possiblity would be that only @_ would do any flattening. It would
> walk each argument with an appropriate iterator to return the flattened
> list.
>
> A parameter list would then have access to the actual items on the list.
A second related question: would I be able to return a list of arrays
from a function, e.g.
(@fit,@corr) = fitit @x, @y;
How could I find out if the user wants just one array or two?
@fit = fitit @x, @y; # return only the fit
Is there a possible 'wantarray' extension to find out if the user wants
an item or several items? What is the meaning of list context then
anyway?
Christian
