On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Stuart Cook wrote:
On 6/1/05, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should {} be an empty hash rather than an empty code?
Given that an empty hashref is probably much more useful than an empty
block, I propose that {} be an empty hash and {;} be an empty block.
Speaking
On 6/1/05, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should {} be an empty hash rather than an empty code?
Given that an empty hashref is probably much more useful than an empty
block, I propose that {} be an empty hash and {;} be an empty block.
This mirrors the fact that (AFAIK) { $_ = 1
Luke Palmer wrote:
Should {} be an empty hash rather than an empty code?
Does it matter? More interesting is the question what it returns
or evaluates to if it's a block. Actually with my idea of List
beeing a subtype of Code the parse time recognition of blocks
as List of Pair has
On 6/2/05, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
Why did we change { %hash } from making a shallow copy of a hash to
the code that returns %hash?
Sorry, I don't understand this question. Do you want 'shallow copy'
to mean 'take a ref'? Or Parrot/Pugs level COW?
Two questions:
Should {} be an empty hash rather than an empty code?
Why did we change { %hash } from making a shallow copy of a hash to
the code that returns %hash?
Luke
