On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 10:27, Peter Haworth wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2002 05:21:37 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 01:46, Trey Harris wrote:
> > > sub push(@target is rw, *@list);
> >
> > Well, yes, but that wasn't the point. The C<*@list> will force array
> > flattening, thus
> >
> > push @a, [1,2,3], 4;
> >
> > will (according to Larry's stated desire to unify arrays and references
> > to arrays in terms of behavior) result in four elements getting pushed
> > onto C<@a>, not two.
>
> But the decision on how arguments get passed happens at compile time, not run
> time. At that point we can tell the difference between an explicit arrayref
> and a flattened array:
Again, we're wading into the waters of over-simplification. Let's try:
sub foo1(){ my @foo=(1,2,3); return @foo; }
sub foo2(){ my $foo = [1,2,3]; return $foo; }
sub foo3(*@list) { print @list.length, "\n"; }
@foo = (1,2,3);
foo3(@foo, [1,2,3], foo2(), foo1());
Ok, so what is the output? 12? 10? 8?
More importantly, why? I could argue the case for each of the above
numbers, but I think 12 is the way it would be right now.
--
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
