Re: RFC 110 (v3) counting matches

>And hashes are assembled just like lists anyways:

>   %hash = list get_key_vals;
>   %hash = (key, val, key2, val2);  # same thing

Eh?  List context is conferred by the % on the LHS.  You need
no redundant listification redundancy there.

>But no, I certainly wouldn't suggest going down the path of 1000
>explicit contexts. Bad. Implicit context good! But a "list" helper
>function like a "scalar" helper function would solve a lot of common
>problems.

No, a list helper function would *not* solve a lot of *common* problems:

    There's no C<list> function corresponding to C<scalar> since,
    in practice, one never needs to force evaluation in a list
    context.  That's because any operation that wants R<LIST> already
    provides a list context to its list arguments for free.

It's not a "common problem".

Now, you *can* force list context, but I (and Larry, one of whose
text I just quoted) don't see it as common, so it's not worth the
word.  But it's not impossible, either, as you can use either the
construct @{ [ ... ] } if you're in a string and trying to interpolate
some function call, or simply through ()=... otherwise.

Education is a wonderful thing.

--tom