Larry Wall writes:
> : Also, how does the use of *$foo differ from @$foo here? Is the later
> : going away? (I'd think that horrible, for the same reason as above: C
> : is confusing because it's not always clear what you get when you *.)
>
> No, @$foo is not going away. You can write it that way when you think
> it's clearer. The primary use of * is still to defeat the signature,
> and @$foo doesn't do that.
Okay, good. So this is correct:
my $baz = @foo;
@bar = map { ... } @$baz;
(to be equivalent of mapping over @foo)?
Is @{$foo} going away? More specifically, how do I write that map if
$baz is some more complex expression, and I don't want to use * (say I
want to adhere if map decides to change its signature to take a real
array)?
Luke
