One has a reasonable expectation of seeing a list following a paren when declaring and initializing a hash or array (%hash= and @array=), so parens indicate the presence of a list.My thought was to connect the idea of passing in a list of key/value pairs to the parens. So if someone is not sure which one to use they could think "[]=array, {}=hash, and ()=list, and I'm assigning it a list of key/value pairs, so I guess I should use parens". Not perfect, but I really didn't see how just thinking of them as precedence overriders would aid in dispelling confusion over when to use () instead of {} or []. But associating the parens with lists -- something similar in concept to arrays and hashes -- would help. It's not a perfect answer, but one hurdle at a time.
Update: 89% was just a high number. Could have been any example. Was not claiming it was accurate. Was just using a very high number as a tie-in to expectations. Trying to read any validity or claim of validity for that number completely missed the point.
Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks
In reply to Re^33: Why? (each...)
by Argel
in thread Why? (each...)
by locked_user sundialsvc4
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |