Junctions should be on or off by default, I prefer on.
Having them half-on is bad.
Because if it is half-on people(me) is going to write
C if $x == 3 | 5 | 7 { in N places then have to
change it and remember to change it in N-1 places. Oops.
ON or OFF. On please.
/Stefan Lidman
Okay,
Now that I've largely accepted junctions (except implicit autothreading,
which is Bad.), I see some corners that need to be poked at in terms of
how they fit into the language as a whole.
All of these examples assume an appropriate level of use junctions; is
in effect.
- Can junctions
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Can junctions be used as array/hash subscripts?
In an rvalue context, this makes sense, in that you can simply return a
junction of the deferences. But in an lvalue context, this gets dubious
for everything except all() junctions. Consider:
@x =
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
The naive meaning of all of these would be::
any(map { @x[$_] = 7 } 4,3)
all(map { @x[$_] = 7 } 4,3,2)
one(map { @x[$_] = 7 } 1,2)
none(map { @x[$_] = 7 } 1,2)
But I'm not sure the naive interpretation is correct.
A junction as an array index or hash
On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 11:52:09AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
But I've repeated stated my strong belief that junctions are scalar values,
*not* lvalues. So the result of that assignment ought to be:
Can't modify constant item in scalar assignment at demo.pl line 1
Yay for sanity. :)
