Is "item context" what we're calling scalar these days, or something else?
On 6/3/07, Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chas Owens wrote:
> I am almost certain that the following code is in list context.
>
> pugs> my @a = '-' x 5, 'foo', '-' x 5;
> pugs> @a
> ("-----", "foo", "-----")
> pugs> my @b = cat('-' xx 5), 'foo', cat('-' xx 5)
> ("-", "-", "-", "-", "-", "foo", "-", "-", "-", "-", "-")
>
> However, it does seem that Pug's version of cat does not handle the
> Str emulation, so that may fix it, but I don't see how it could since
> (at least in my mind) the code above is in list context.
You're right; it is.
From what you're saying, I get the impression that you think that "'-'
x 5" ought to produce a single string of five dashes regardless of
whether the context is item or list. Correct? (Note: I'm not asking
about what the spec says, since what it says is potentially up for
revision, given sufficient cause; I'm asking about what you think the
spec _should_ say.) If so, "cat($n xx *)" is not an adequate
replacement for "$n x *", since it produces a list of one-character
strings if used in list context. OTOH, "~cat($n xx *)" might work.
Personally, I would tend to favor the notion that infix:<x> always
produces a single string. With this in mind, I'm now leaning toward
"~cat($a xx $n)" as the more verbose equivalent of "$a x $n". You
always produce a single string, and you do so lazily (according to the
way that 'cat' works in item context).
--
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
