> "Bart" == Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bart> So length is already picky on what it accepts. You need to turn it into
Bart> print length(scalar(@a, 'this is a string'));
Bart> to get perl to accept it.
And then what it's accepting is the scalar-comma operator, giving you
the
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Subroutines should be able to return an lvalue
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Johan Vromans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Aug 2000
Last Modified: 20 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 132
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 07:03:33 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
>I'm pretty sure it's not just the people coming from C who expect this.
Uh-oh.
>This all points to the bug^H^H^Hdubious feature which is the sub($)
>context template as applied to named arrays and hashes. Requiring
>an explicit conve
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Bart Lateur wrote:
> The argument against my reasoning would be if the bulk of people making
> this mistake are *not* coming from C. I don't know.
I have a feeling we're either arguing the same side without
realizing it, or we're just having a straight-up conversati
This will make programs highly nonportable. You can't easily know what
modules they really need.
--tom
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:15:13AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> =head2 The Basics
>
> The new C pragma would rely on an C file that
> was located in C<@INC> and looked something like this:
What happens when there are multiple C files in C<@INC>?
> A custom one could also be included in C
>What I said was: making length(@array) "work" would be catering to
>novice people *coming from C*. We shouldn't. Not that much. In Perl, a
>string is not an array.
I'm pretty sure it's not just the people coming from C who expect this.
This all points to the bug^H^H^Hdubious feature which is th
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 07:40:07 -0700 (PDT), Dave Storrs wrote:
>> Doesn't this reflect C's idea of "a string is an array of characters"?
>> Which isn't the idea behind strings in Perl. The basic idea is wrong.
>> Therefore, making length(@array) work, would be a wrong signal.
>
> I personally
