HaloO Juerd,

you wrote:
(This illustrates my feeling about @foo[] being the same as @foo. It
feels inconsistent with &foo() not being &foo.)

I have the same feeling. But I would like @foo[] to mean something else
than plain @foo which should be---hmm, how shall I put that---a underefenced reference to whatever hides behind the ref|variable|name.
The [] then does the deref like () derefs &foo.

Regards, -- TSa (Thomas Sandla▀)

Reply via email to