Juerd wrote:
> The only real problem with having only infix := for binding, is that you
> can't easily use an alias (aka transparent reference) in a list. You can
> have an array of aliases, but it's harder to have an array or hash in
> which one element is an alias. Binding can be done explicitly:
>
> %hash = { key => undef, foo => 'bar' };
> %hash<key> := $variable;
> %hash<key> = 5; # $variable is now 5 too
Sorry to interrupt, but wasn't {} not derefed when assigned
to a % variable? Don't get me wrong, I like this meaning. And
it seems to be intuitive once in a while ;)
> But there is no way to set the transparent reference (aka alias)
> initially, because we lack a \-like syntax.
Why isn't \ good enough there? Because it requires $%hash<key> = 5?
> So I propose that := becomes a prefix operator as well as an infix one,
> allowing:
>
> %hash = { key => := $variable, foo => 'bar' };
> %hash<key> = 5; # $variable is now 5 too
I propose %hash = { key => :\$variable, foo => 'bar' };
Or should we also invent :=> to make a key/link pair?
Question: when a variable contains an opaque Ref and one
uses this variable in an assignment as lhs, that still goes
to the referee? How is the variable then detached? To wit:
$var = 7;
$ref = \$var;
$$ref = 12; # should $ref suffice?
say $var; # prints 12
$ref = 17; # detaches? Or is :\$ref = 17 needed?
say $var; # still prints 12
--
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)
