Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-04-28 14:30 (+0200):
does the following work as expected?
for %hash.pairs - $pair { # Note: No is rw!
$pair.value = ...; # Modifies %hash
}
Yes, because a pair is an object (reference), and it's not the .value
that you're passing ro.
I still want
Juerd skribis 2005-04-28 14:47 (+0200):
Yes, because a pair is an object (reference), and it's not the .value
that you're passing ro.
An example of what would go wrong:
for %hash.pairs.value - $value {
$value = ...;
}
But this will work:
for %hash.pairs.value {
$_
Juerd wrote:
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-04-28 14:30 (+0200):
does the following work as expected?
for %hash.pairs - $pair { # Note: No is rw!
$pair.value = ...; # Modifies %hash
}
Yes, because a pair is an object (reference), and it's not the .value
that you're passing ro.
I come
Thomas Sandlaß skribis 2005-04-28 18:09 (+0200):
I still want -, by the way.
Me too. And I guess - naturally completes the set.
Although it would complete the set, in the months since I first started
wanting -, I have not been able to come up with a good reason to want
write-only binding.
A
