Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:

    [EMAIL PROTECTED];         # Reference to array, of course
    \(@array);       # same
    \(((@array)));   # same

    \(1,2,3);        # Reference to a list promoted to an array (!)
    \(((1,2,3)));    # same

The thing that is unclear to me here and

    [EMAIL PROTECTED];        # List of references to @array's elements
    \*(((@array)));  # same

    \*(1,2,3);       # List of references to @array's elements
    \*(((1,2,3)));   # same

here is if you can write through the ref into a automagically created
array or not. I would like to maintain it as error case. Actually I
don't like to think of \(1,2,3) as array at all. Note that * is a no-op
in *(1,2,3) because it is already a list. Hence the cases should have the
same meaning.

Should [\] 1,2,3; be allowed? I know \ is no infix op and as such not
amenable to the list reducing itemizer. But it could allow the types

  \ (1,2,3);  # List of Ref  of Int   (which is a  Code subtype)
 [\] 1,2,3;   # Ref  of List of Int   (which is an Item subtype)

But that might be too far fetched. Even the subtyping of List below Code
is not confirmed by @Larry.
$TSa.greeting := "HaloO"; # mind the echo!

Reply via email to