--- Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What was the reason again which Larry rejected unifying the syntax
> for array
> > and hash indexing?
>
> Because some things have both, and do different things with each.
> And because some built-in redundancy is useful for error checking,
> especially on complex nested data structures.
>
>
> > As Piers said, we know whether $a is an array or hash reference
> when we do:
> >
> > print $a->{foo};
>
> No we don't. Especially if $a is $0 (i.e. the result of a pattern
> match).
> See Exegesis 5 for details.
$0 has more baggage than a gaggle of New York matrons on an extended
vacation. Please don't tell me that you want that to be the reference
definition for all arrays/hashes?
And it's neither an array nor a hash -- it's a "result", according to
A5. I'm assuming that's a magic class, no?
=Austin
