Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> >And hashes are assembled just like lists anyways:
>
> > %hash = list get_key_vals;
> > %hash = (key, val, key2, val2); # same thing
>
> Eh? List context is conferred by the % on the LHS. You need
> no redundant listification redundancy there.
I was trying to show that "hash" isn't a needed keyword, NOT that "list"
is needed here.
> Now, you *can* force list context, but I (and Larry, one of whose
> text I just quoted) don't see it as common, so it's not worth the
> word. But it's not impossible, either, as you can use either the
> construct @{ [ ... ] } if you're in a string and trying to interpolate
> some function call, or simply through ()=... otherwise.
I know. But I've always thought this it too obscure. You only need one
trigonometric function, you know - everything else can be derived from
manipulation of sine. But we support 6. Why? To make things easy things
easier.
If you do need to force list context - and all of the example so far
have demonstrated you do from time to time - then *sometimes* "list"
makes more sense, just like *sometimes* "scalar" makes more sense:
foo(list bar()); # easy
foo( () = bar() ); # not as easy
foo(bar()); # easy
foo(scalar bar()); # not as easy
my($arg1) = func; # easy
my $arg1 = list func; # not as easy
my $num = @a; # easy
my($num) = scalar @a; # not as easy
The only thing you seem to be arguing against is clarity. I don't see
any disruption in the language here, or any reason "list" is less useful
than "scalar".
> Education is a wonderful thing.
I certainly hope this wasn't directed towards me.
-Nate
