> Daniel Ruoso wrote:
>> That being said, we should note that this example looks simple because
>> we have almost no lazyness implied (since there's an assignment in the
>> first line), every list access requires the evaluation of the flatenning
>> of the list.
>> my @@a = ((),(1,2,3),());
> Mustn't that be written as (();(1,2,3);()) to produce a three
> element outer view?
Aye, it must.
>> @a =!= @@a :test;
> BTW, what does the :test mean there?
We discussed the option to change our testing syntax from
ok(@a =!= @@a, '@a and @aa mean different things')
@a =!= @@a :ok('@a and @aa mean different things')
or maybe with :test instead of :ok.
I'll open a thread about that in January, in the hope that the outcome
will enable me to draft S24.