> I agree with both of you. It would be nice if @$ precedence worked as Bart
> specified, but I still think that arrays should be arrays.
The problem is that
$name = "myarray";
@$name = (1,2,3);
print @$name[0,1]; # 1,2
Is very consistent currently. Change one and you have to change t
Buddha Buck wrote:
> The main problem I see are these:
>
> @array = ([1,2],[3,4]); # 2-dimensional array, using LOL syntax
> print $array[[1,1]]; # prints 4, OK
> print $array[1]; # prints ?
> print $array[[1,1,1]]; # prints ?
> print $array[[1]]; # prints ?
>
> Ac
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:58:10 +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
>
> >Bart Lateur wrote:
> >> Hmm... the problem is, I think, that array references and ordinary
> >> scalars are both scalars.
> >>
> >That's true, but they're scalars with different interfaces. In particular,
> >an array ref can be deref
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 11:32:58AM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> > Yes this is the point. I guess another way of looking at it is
> > saying that 3*@a operates in a list context not a scalar context
>
> Well, this shows that you entirely miss the problem of cryptoco
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:58:10 +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
>Bart Lateur wrote:
>> Hmm... the problem is, I think, that array references and ordinary
>> scalars are both scalars.
>>
>That's true, but they're scalars with different interfaces. In particular,
>an array ref can be dereferenced and prov
RFC 207(v2) was posted several days ago with substantial changes from
v1. Since then, I have seen little (if any) discussion of the new or old
versions. As such, I am assuming that the RFC is acceptable as it
stands. As such, unless I hear otherwise before 28 September 2000, 5:00PM
New York
