It's kind of funny, because my feelings are the opposite of what blokhead describes in the last paragraph of Re^3: Representing all data as Lists; I'd actually be more inclined to support unifying the internals than changing the interface, though I don't really think either is a very good idea.
Like I said (or maybe I should have said more clearly) in my original reply, I think different things should look different. You may say the corollary is that alike things should like similar -- and I'd agree -- but in this case I dont' think a string and a list are things that are really all that alike. I can understand why someone would say they are, but I think it's a contrived likeness.
I strongly agree with Perl's current notion that a string is an individual thing (i.e. a scalar). I don't often have the need to break that thing apart and operate on its individual characters (Update: a clarification of what I meant). Perhaps that's a learned trait, but I tend to think it's more likely that instinctively seeing a string as a list is less natural.
In the case of hashes, I don't feel as strongly as I do about strings. Hashes are very list-like already, and as you pointed out, you can already coerce a list into a hash. That's a pretty natural-feeling thing, in my eyes. I still think a hash is different enough from a plain list that it deserves its own syntax and sigil, though. And Perl 6 will make it pretty easy to get a list of pairs, or a list of interwoven keys/values:
my %hash = <one 1 two 2 three 3>; say $_.join(" ") for %hash.pairs; # output: # one 1 # three 3 # two 2 say for %hash.kv; # output: # one # 1 # three # 3 # two # 2
In reply to Re^3: Representing all data as Lists
by revdiablo
in thread Representing all data as Lists (Perl7?)
by rje
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |