Well, the left-hand side of the assignment is
a glob, so it must be that *b is evaluated in glob
context!
That is, in all seriousness, precisely what I'm
suggesting.
*b is *b whether its in list context or
scalar context.
Correct. But *b is not \*b in list context or
scalar context, or any other named context I
can find. And yet they are the same in statements
like *a = *b; and *a = \*b;
Hence, I am suggesting that this constitutes an
example of a distinct context, unlike the others.
In short, I am asking for criticism of this theory.
I am also trying to see what interest there is in
this sort of approach to thinking about Perl; I've
been doing a lot of it lately, and it's been quite
interesting and educational. We customarily look at
Perl as a tool, for the purpose of accomplishing
our objectives with it. While this, of course,
interests me greatly, I fear it can be a limiting
perspective; I also wonder whether the models we're
using to describe Perl have unsatisfactory limitations.
One monk privately said in jest, "it's all too
theoretical." I'm afraid many people will view
such discussions that way in earnest. Nonetheless,
this sort of thing seems significant to me. | 