On 6/2/05, "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Why did we change { %hash } from making a shallow copy of a hash to
> > the code that returns %hash?
>
> Sorry, I don't understand this question. Do you want 'shallow copy'
> to mean 'take a ref'? Or Parrot/Pugs level COW?
I think he means "Why does it produce a Code (which happens to return
%hash), instead of a (ref to a) new hash that starts out with the same
k/v pairs as %hash, but thereafter can be modified independently?"
Stuart
