Hi,
Juerd wrote:
> Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-09-09 15:12 (+0200):
>> I agree that the comma operator creates an anonymous array, but I do
>> not agree that it behaves as if it has [] around it.
>>
>> Creating an anonymous array does not require creating new containers
>> --
>
> So comma in scalar context creates an array of aliases?
Exactly! :)
(Presuming that I understood things correctly, of course.)
> That would be a welcome difference.
I like that behaviour, too. :)
>> should change $bar to $baz (you reminded me of this property of
>> &infix:<,> in
>
> Infix? Infix operators are binary, comma is not.
I took the name from Pugs's PIL. The signature of &infix:<,> is ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]),
so it isn't strictly binary, of course.
I think the name &infix:<,> is based on the names of the chained
comparators:
1 < 2 < 3; # is really
&infix:{"<"}(1, 2, 3);
(This is, as far as I know, not specced. Take it as an report on Pugs's
internals.)
--Ingo
--
Linux, the choice of a GNU | Row, row, row your bits, gently down
generation on a dual AMD | stream...
Athlon! |
