> > @bar[$foo]; # A > > %bar{$foo}; # B > > @bar{$foo}; # C > > %bar[$foo]; # D > > > You forgot > > $bar[$foo]; # $bar is an array reference > $bar{$foo}; # $bar is a hash reference I can't argue with that. My vote is now against conflating [] and {}. ------- Please bear with me just a (hoefully little) longer. Ok, why not deprecate %foo and always use @ instead and have [] and {} represent two indexing name spaces? In perl 6 experiments, and perl 7, you'll have % to play with.
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Damian Conway
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Michael G Schwern
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Buddha Buck
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Damian Conway
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Me
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation David L. Nicol
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Graham Barr
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation Bart Lateur
- Re: what I meant about hungarian notation John Porter