>>>>> "ML" == Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ML> On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 03:38 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> but you can't derive the rules about allowing push/pop/splice/slice
>> from
>> that pair of defintions.
ML> Is there any syntactic reason why both of the following cannot be
ML> allowed?
ML> (1,2,3).pop
that is no different than saying (3). as the list can't be modified nor
a ref taken, the pop is illegal.
ML> [1,2,3].pop
ML> I don't know that one is any more/less useful than the other, and it
ML> would seem a list could be silently promoted to an array where it is
ML> used as an array. For example,
ML> \(1,2,3)
ML> returns an array reference...
in perl5 it returns a list of refs ( \1, \2, \3 ). i dunno the perl6
semantics. it could be the same as [ 1, 2, 3 ] which means it is not a
list but sugar for a new anon array and more like:
do{ \my @foo = ( 1, 2, 3 ) }
but we only need [] for all that.
uri
--
Uri Guttman ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- http://www.stemsystems.com
----- Stem and Perl Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding ----
Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org
Damian Conway Perl Classes - January 2003 -- http://www.stemsystems.com/class
