On 25 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 25 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > Personally I don't like the C< is Hashed::ByValues > because it smacks
> > > of spooky action at a distance; I much prefer my notion of C< %h{*@x}
> > > = 1>. And in Perl 6 I have the horrible feeling that C<< %h = (*@x =>
> > > 1) >> would expand to C<< %h = (1,2,3 => 1) >>, leading to a hash that
> > > looks like C< { 1 => 2, 3 => 1 } >. Or does the pair constructor
> > > force a scalar context on its lhs?
> >
> > Well, it depends on precedence. And I think unary * should have higher
> > precedence than =>, which, mind you, is not a funky comma anymore.
> >
> > And if not, that's very wrong, and we shoul do something about it.
>
> But what do commas mean in a hash constructor? Do they even have any
> meaning?
It probably does just what you want. Larry said that you could select how
a hash hashes, including having arbitrary objects as keys. Since an
array (or a list) is a real object, you can probably use it as a key. He
said the _default_ is going to look an awful lot like Perl 5. Of course,
he's given no details on that yet.
And I'm sorry if I misquoted him, but I don't think I did.
Luke
