Ex4 smart match question
Does one of these items not belong?
From Exegesis 4:
This new turbo-charged 'smart match' operator will also work on arrays, hashes and
lists:
if array =~ $elem {...}# true if array contains $elem
if $key =~ %hash {...} # true if %hash{$key}
if $value =~ (1..10) {...} # true if $value is in the list
if $value =~ ('a',/\s/,7) {...} # true if $value is eq to 'a'
# or if $value contains whitespace
# or if $value is == to 7
It's very cool--but why is it $key =~ %hash but $value =~ array rather than one way
or the other?
John A
They laughed at Joan of Arc, but she went right ahead and built it.
---Gracie Allen
Re: Re: RFC: new logical operator
Randal L. Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sam No, but is syntactically equivalent to and in English. It Sam just implies that the second condition is not generally what Sam you'd expect if the first was true. Randal Maybe in the interest of huffman encoding, we could make Randal it even_though. :) Or we could compromise on despite. But (sigh) when I first looked at this proposal, I thought, Now what the heck is he trying to say that 'and' doesn't cover? Is it really syntactic sugar if it's confusing at first glance? John A
Re: Re: Perl6 -- what is in a name?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The third group that won't be happy with Perl 6 are those who program in a limited subset of Perl - so limited, in fact, that they will most likely be bitten by minor changes in the language, without the benefit of experiencing the major improvements that those changes allowed. These people are, by and large, not professional programmers, but folks for whom Perl is a simple and powerful tool in their jobs, and it will drive them crazy when their toolkits and recipes stop working. I should know, I support multitudes of these people. Just out of curiosity, what percentage of Perl users would you say fall into this category? And should follow-ups to this go, perhaps, to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? John A
