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]>