Autrijus Tang wrote:
map { $_ => $_; } @foo;
This works too:
map { ;$_ => $_ } @foo;
But () is still only a grouper, so this won't do:
map { ($_ => $_) } @foo;
Does this make sense?
A lot! BTW, is it possible to distinguish methods and subs
from the toplevel, too? That li
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 04:39:04PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : Larry suggested that to keep it from being collapsed, we somehow
> : augment toplevel AST:
> :
> : map { $_ => $_; } @foo;
> : map { +($_ => $_) } @foo;
>
> Uh, I'm not sure what + would r
Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-24 18:50 (-0700):
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] = (1..2:by(0));
[EMAIL PROTECTED] = 1 xx Inf;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] = 1 xx @bar;
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
nstructor:
: >:
: >: map { $_ => $_ } @foo;
: >
: >: And maybe it can be extended over adverbial blocks, too:
: >:
: >: @foo.map:{ $_ => $_ }; # closure
:
: Why not just always use the ':' when you are giving a block. The
: block is essentially an adverb for a map|
At 4:39 PM -0700 4/24/05, Larry Wall wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 02:13:26AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: A while ago I posted a conflict between a block containing a pair
: constructor, vs. a hash constructor:
:
: map { $_ => $_ } @foo;
: And maybe it can be extended over adverbial blo
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 02:13:26AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: A while ago I posted a conflict between a block containing a pair
: constructor, vs. a hash constructor:
:
: map { $_ => $_ } @foo;
:
: Larry suggested that to keep it from being collapsed, we somehow
: augment toplevel
A while ago I posted a conflict between a block containing a pair
constructor, vs. a hash constructor:
map { $_ => $_ } @foo;
Larry suggested that to keep it from being collapsed, we somehow
augment toplevel AST:
map { $_ => $_; } @foo;
map { +($_ => $_) } @foo;
But here
