To see what is currently happening visit http://www.perl6.org/
Add list keyword to force list context (like scalar)
Maintainer: Nathan Wiger <nate@wiger.org> Date: 29 Aug 2000 Last Modified: 11 Sep 2000 Mailing List: perl6-language@perl.org Number: 175 Version: 2 Status: Retracted
Currently, we have a scalar keyword to force scalar context. However,
we have no corresponding list keyword, leading to constructs like
this:
foo( () = bar() ); # force list context
Which are clumsy, at best. Do they work? Yes. Is it easily readable and maintainable code? Not really.
This RFC proposes a new keyword, list, which forces list context.
This means the above can simply be written as:
foo(list bar()); # force list context
Which is consistent with similar uses of scalar, and also makes the
code much more readable. This RFC does NOT propose any other keywords
because they are unnecessary. All data types in Perl are built on lists
and scalars.
On the surface makes sense. But in reality...Bad Idea.
www.mail-archive.com www.mail-archive.com
The purpose of this RFC is to increase clarity, make easy things easier, and make Perl contexts more accessible. It is not to supplant the current implicit typing methods, which are a beautiful thing.
The new list context keyword makes things clearer and easier to
understand in some situations, just like scalar:
foo(list bar()); # easy foo( () = bar() ); # not as easy foo(bar()); # easy foo(scalar bar()); # not as easy $count = list split /!/; # easy $count = () = split /!/; # not as easy my($arg1) = func; # easy my $arg1 = list func; # not as easy my $num = @a; # easy my($num) = scalar @a; # not as easy my($nextvar) = scalar <STDIN>; # Camel-3 p. 778, for clarity my $nextvar = <STDIN>; # implicit
Here, list can be used to force list context, just like scalar can
be used to force scalar context. And, as the Camel-3 example shows, it
can be used for greater clarity if you so desire just like scalar.
There are several arguments against list, so I'll spend the remainder
of the RFC addressing them. There has already been a huge discussion on
this as well; please see the REFERENCES for links to the thread.
list, it's unnecessarySo is scalar. There are ways around using scalar, just as there
are ways around using list. While they are not exactly analogous
workarounds, there is still no real reason scalar is needed and
list is not. Consider:
$num = scalar @a; # scalar explicit $num = @a; # scalar implicit $num = list @a; # list explicit ($num) = @a; # list implicit
We don't need 6 trigonometric functions, either - everything can be
derived from sin. However, we support them to make easy things
easier. The same philosophy should apply here.
hash, boolean, and other keywords?No. Every Perl data type is built on either a list (arrays and
hashes) or a scalar (scalars) context. Other contexts are not
analogous or even closely related.
list context is not a common problemIf it weren't, then it wouldn't have spawned a huge discussion already.
Also, Perl books would not have to make special notes of how to
artificially enforce list context with special constructs:
() = funkshun(); $x = ( () = funk() );
Which could be easily rewritten as:
list funkshun; $x = (list funk); # with one keyword, or... $x = scalar list funk; # can chain to make explicit
Thanks to the new list keyword.
list adds nothing newExcept clarity, simplicity, and consistency, without having to sacrifice any part of the existing language. If you don't like it, don't use it.
Hold on.
None. This adds new functionality.
Camel-3, p. 778 (The section on scalar)
Thanks to Bart Lateur for his input
There was an extensive, heated discussion between Tom C and myself on this topic. I will post a link to the email archive as a follow-up after this posts (it is not currently available on mail-archive.com).