On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 11:04:57PM +0100, St�phane Payrard wrote:
: On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 12:12:59PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: >
: > print $ref
: >
: > it doesn't do what you want, but
: >
: > print $ref.as(Array)
: >
: > might work a lot better, though of course
: >
: > print @$ref
: >
:
: What is supposed to do the splat operator in this context?
Splat is a no-op in list context. Its only use in an rvalue is
to introduce a list context where scalar context would normally
be inferred. So you could say
@args = ([EMAIL PROTECTED], 1, 2, 3);
push [EMAIL PROTECTED];
even though push expects a scalar array ref as the first argument.
: My understanding is that when an operator expects something and gets
: a ref instead, the ref is dereferenced until the expected operand
: is found. The interpretor barks otherwise.
In scalar context, that's basically true. (All ordinary scalars are
references anyway, which is why @_ is a call-by-reference array.)
In list context, however, a scalar variable provides a scalar value
by default. It could be a scalar reference to the entire OED, but
Perl thinks it's a singular value, not a plural one, unless you tell
it otherwise somehow.
Actually, C<print> was a bad example, because $ref might well be
expanded (in a sense) by the stringification implicit to print.
Instead, let's consider:
push @array, $ref;
That pushes a single reference into the array, because that is what
it looks like it's doing. If you say
push @array, $a, $b;
it doesn't matter whether $a or $b are references to arrays--it still
only pushes two singular values into the array. In this case you
would have to say
push @array, @$a, @$b;
to get the arrays flattened into the push's list argument. (This is
just how it works in Perl 5 too.)
It would be possible to make the default the other way, and explicitly
mark where you *don't* want expansion, but I think it would be much
more error prone. It would certainly make it more difficult to read
unfamiliar code and figure out what's going on.
: So I expect
:
: print *$ref
:
: when $ref is ref to an array to be equivalent to
:
: print [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:
: which in turn should behave like
:
: print @$ref
:
: because C<print> splats its operands.
:
: I don't pretend that C<print *$ref> is very readable, I just ask
: what it does or if it is at all permitted.
It's permitted, but does nothing. I admit that, to a C programmer, it
looks a bit like a deref, but this isn't C. Perl has always derefed
arrays and hashes with @ and %, and that doesn't change in Perl 6.
All I'm saying above is that .as(Array) and .as(Hash) might have the
same result of explicitly dereferencing a singular reference to a
plural value.
Larry
