On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 10:06:25AM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote:
: On 10/26/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > So we'd get:
: > :@array 42 => @array
: Do you mean C< :@array 42 => @array >?
Yes. I was changing it because 42 : 1 :: foo : a, but I flubbed.
: > The last three forms are more arguable than the first three, especially
: > since they probably aren't valid formal parameters. We kind of need
: > a subscript modifier instead:
: > @array: 42 => @array
: Same question.