Either it is the same as %details{who} = "me", %details{why} = $because, which would make sence because of the unary * operator or it would be the same as %details = ();%details{who} = "me", %details{why} = $because
The reason I suspect it to be behave like the latter is because the flattening behaviour of the
* in this context. If we broke it down it might look something like this
%data = << why dunno who them where there which this >>;
*%data = ( who => 'me', why => 'because' );
## which if we expand the splat expands to (I think)
%data.kv = ( who => 'me', why => 'because' );
That of course assumes the
kv method is lvaluable, but basically it looks like it's assigning all of
%data to the RHS. Whereas with named binding it
will just be the keys
who and
why which are bound, otherwise we assume that named binding behaviour is also used in straight assignments, which isn't the case. Again this is all speculation, but I'm hoping it's not too far off, or at least raising some interesting issues. Perhaps in this particular instance the splat is a no-op, or maybe it's a slurp and
%data isn't run-over (but that would in turn make the assignment look like a right-to-left pipe ...).
HTH
_________
broquaint