On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hm. How is (*@;AoA) different from (Array [EMAIL PROTECTED]) then? (Assuming
> that
> foo(@a; @b) desugars to foo([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]).)
Well, it's not at all, under that assumption. But that assumption is
wrong. I think foo(@a; @b) doesn't have a sugar-free form (that is to
say, it is the sugar-free form). Among things that desugar to it:
@a ==> foo() <== @b
foo(@a) <== @b
@a ==> @b ==> foo() # maybe; don't remember
To illustrate:
sub foo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) {
say [EMAIL PROTECTED];
}
sub bar (*@;a) {
say +@;a;
}
foo(1,2,3; 4,5,6); # 6
bar(1,2,3; 4,5,6); # 2
That is, the regular [EMAIL PROTECTED] has "concat" semantics. However, I'd
like to
argue that it should have "die" semantics, for obvious reasons.
Luke
