Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >But that, precisely, was my point: Arrays *and* hashes. If there is more than > >one plural whatzitz, then why can't there be more than one singular whatzitz? > >(and don't say, "because plural *means* more than one" :-). If having a > >filehandle character would make the code clearer, then let's do it. > > No: lists are the plural whatzitzes, containing zero or more singular > whatzitzes. They are ordered. Arrays hold lists. > > Hashes, on the otherhand, are *unordered* pluralities containing zero > or more look-up-able dualities. Unless someone's been playing tricks with Tie, in which case all bets are off. -- Piers
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-definin... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-defining pun... Simon Cozens
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-definin... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Ted Ashton
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Larry Wall
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... John Porter
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-def... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC: Filehandle type-defining punctuation Steve Simmons