Sorry, I was being too terse in my original message, I guess some of the
meaning got lost.
When I said:
> > If %(...) makes a shallow copy of its innards, as Perl5's { ... } does,
> > then how do you impose hash context onto something without doing the
> > copy?
What I meant to say was:
> > Speaking hypothetically, for a moment, let's assume that what %(...)
> > does is it makes a shallow copy of its innards, as Perl5's { ... } does.
> > Then what syntax do you use to impose hash context onto something
> > without doing the copy?.
In other words, I was attempting a proof-by-contradiction. It didn't
come out too well, I gotta say.
I'm pretty sure that none of us is quite on the same wavelength here.
But since it's all speaking hypothetically, who cares?
Anyway, after all this, I went back to see Apocalypse 2, and this bit
stood out:
And the { foo => $bar } list composer will be required to use => (or be
in a hashlist context), or it will instead be interpreted as a closure
without a sub. (You can always use an explicit sub or hash to cast the
brackets to the proper interpretation.)
which I guess answered my original question.
--
Debbie Pickett http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~debbiep [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"You can't take me up, you can't wind me down, There's no escape but I'll never
drown, no wires or strings, no rough and smooth, just like fire and stings,
watch me closely, watch my every move." - _Wine from the Water_, Alan Parsons
