Hi,
Luke Palmer wrote:
> 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.
Aha! FYI, I got that interpretation from r6628 of S09 [1]:
> The following two constructs are structurally indistinguishable:
>
> (0..10; 1,2,4; 3)
> ([0..10], [1,2,3,4], [3])
> 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.
Just to clarify -- only ";" with "*@;a" should have "die" semantics, ","
with "*@;a" should continue to work, right? (If so, I agree.)
Could you provide some more examples with ;, please? In particular, what
are the results of the following expressions?
(42; 23)
(@a; @b)
(@a; @b)[0]
(@a; @b)[0][0]
((42;23); (17;19))
((@a;@b); (@c;@d))
*(42; 23)
*(@a; @b)
( (42; 23), 19)
(*(42; 23), 19)
[42; 23]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; @b]
Thanks very much,
--Ingo
[1] http://svn.perl.org/perl6/doc/trunk/design/syn/S09.pod
/The semicolon operator
