NAME
Exegesis_02 - Bits and Pieces
AUTHOR
Damian Conway <damian@conway.org>
VERSION
Maintainer: Larry Wall <larry@wall.org>
Date: 15 May 2001
Last Modified: 29 May 2006
Number: 2
Version: 2[Update: Please note that this was written several years ago, and a number of things have changed since then. Rather than changing the original document, we'll be inserting "Update" notes like this one to tell you where the design has since evolved. (For the better, we hope). In any event, for the latest Perl 6 design (or to figure out any cryptic remarks below) you should read the Synopses, which are kept very much more up-to-date than either the Apocalypses or Exegeses.]
exegesis: n. an interpretation and explanation of a text, esp. Holy Writ
This is the first of a series of articles paralleling Larry's "Apocalypse" encyclicals (it's numbered 2 to keep it in sync with those Revelations). These articles will take each unveiled piece of the design for Perl 6 and demonstrate the new syntax and semantics in an annotated program.
So, without further ado, let's write some Perl 6:
# bintree - binary tree demo program
# adapted from "Perl Cookbook", Recipe 11.15
use strict;
use warnings;[Update: These are now the default.]
my ($root, $n);
while ($n++ < 20) { insert($root, int rand 1000) }
my int ($pre, $in, $post) is constant = (0..2);[Update: Now "is readonly". or use the "constant" declarator.]
print "Pre order: "; show($root,$pre); print "\n";
print "In order: "; show($root,$in); print "\n";
print "Post order: "; show($root,$post); print "\n";
$*ARGS is chomped;[Update: Filehandles now autochomp by default.]
$ARGS prompts("Search? ");[Update: And the syntax for mixing in properties has changed to "but".]
while (<$ARGS>) {[Update: The <...> syntax has been stolen by qw// and related constant slice subscripts. These days you can say "for @$ARGS {...}" instead.]
if (my $node = search($root, $_)) {
print "Found $_ at $node: $node{VALUE}\n";
print "(again!)\n" if $node{VALUE}.Found > 1;
}
else {
print "No $_ in tree\n";[Update: Most of these print statements that end with newline are now done with say instead.]
}
}
exit;
#########################################
sub insert (HASH $tree is rw, int $val) {[Update: HASH is now spelled Hash.]
unless ($tree) {[Update: The parentheses are now optional on most conditionals.]
my %node;
%node{LEFT} = undef;
%node{RIGHT} = undef;
%node{VALUE} = $val is Found(0);[Update: Hash subscripts no longer autoquote. Use %node<LEFT> for a constant subscript instead. And the property would be $val but Found(0) now.]
$tree = %node;
return;
}
if ($tree{VALUE} > $val) { insert($tree{LEFT}, $val) }
elsif ($tree{VALUE} < $val) { insert($tree{RIGHT}, $val) }
else { warn "dup insert of $val\n" }
}
sub show {
return unless @_[0];
show(@_[0]{LEFT}, @_[1]) unless @_[1] == $post;
show(@_[0]{RIGHT},@_[1]) if @_[1] == $pre;
print @_[0]{VALUE};
show(@_[0]{LEFT}, @_[1]) if @_[1] == $post;
show(@_[0]{RIGHT},@_[1]) unless @_[1] == $pre;
}
sub search (HASH $tree is rw, *@_) {
return unless $tree;
return search($tree{@_[0]<$tree{VALUE} && "LEFT" || "RIGHT"}, @_[0])
unless $tree{VALUE} == @_[0];
$tree{VALUE} is Found($tree{VALUE}.Found+1);
return $tree;
}It's Perl, Jim, and quite like we know it
The program gets off to a familiar start:
use strict;
use warnings;
my ($root, $n);
while ($n++ < 20) { insert($root, int rand 1000) }Nothing new here. And, in fact, despite the many new features it illustrates, overall this program looks and feels a great deal like Perl 5 code.
That shouldn't really be surprising, given that Perl 6 is growing out the of suggestions of hundreds of devoted Perl 5 programmers, filtered through the mind that invented Perl 5.
As RFC 28 suggested, Perl is definitely going to stay Perl.
Any variables to declare?
Variable declarations in Perl 6 can be as simple as those for $root and $n above, but they can also be much more sophisticated:
my int ($pre, $in, $post) is constant = (0..2);[Update: The parens on the right side are now optional with list assignment. And the property is now "readonly".]
Here we declare three variables that share a common type (int) and a common property (constant). Typed lexicals are a feature of Perl 5 too, but having names for Perl's built-in types is new.
The type specification tells the compiler that $pre, $in, and $post will only ever be used to store integer values. And because int is in lower-case, the specification also tells the compiler that it's okay to optimize the implementation of the variables, because we promise not to bless them or ascribe any run-time properties to them. Making this promise and then breaking the rules later in the program will get you a compile-time or run-time error (depending on whether the compiler can detect the malfeasance statically).
If we had not been willing to live without the blessing of bless-ing or the useful run-time properties of run-time properties, we would have written:
my INT ($pre, $in, $post) is constant = (0..2);in which case we'd get three less-optimized, but fully-functional, Perl scalars.
[Update: That's Int now.]
In this particular case, the int/INT distinction makes very little practical difference. However, there's a significant advantage to writing:
my int @hit_count is dim(100,366,24);compared to:
my INT @hit_count is dim(100,366,24);and thereby replacing nearly a million chunky scalars with svelte raw integers.
[Update: The dimensioning syntax is now "my int @hit_count[^100;^366;^24]".]
La propriété c'est le vol
The is constant and is dim bits of the above declarations are compile-time property specifications. These particular properties are standard to Perl 6, but you can also roll-your-own. The is dim property tells Perl the (fixed!) dimensions of the array in question. The is constant property specifies that the preceding variables cannot be assigned to, nor have their values otherwise modified, once they're initialized.
Moreover, the constant property is a hint to the compiler that it may be able to optimize the variables right out of existence, by inlining their values directly. Of course, that's only feasible if we don't ever treat them like a real variable (e.g. take a reference to them, or bless them).
The is keyword is optional where its absence is unambiguous, so we could have written:
my int ($pre, $in, $post) constant = (0..2);Larry's also still mulling over a suggestion that are be provided as a synonym for is, so you might even be able to write the declaration as:
my int ($pre, $in, $post) are constant = (0..2);[Update: Er, no. We don't actually encourage list declarations.]
An important feature of the is operator that we'll make use of shortly, is that it returns its left operand. So:
$submarine is Colour('yellow')evaluates to $submarine, not 'yellow'.
[Update: Now the does or but operator instead, depending on whether it's an in-place or copied mixin.]
More of the same
The three calls to show are also exactly as they were in Perl 5:
print "Pre order: "; show($root,$pre); print "\n";
print "In order: "; show($root,$in); print "\n";
print "Post order: "; show($root,$post); print "\n";Happily, we're going to see that a lot throughout this series of articles.
Biting off less so you can chew
Do you ever get tired of writing:
while (<>) { # Common Perl 5 idiom
chomp;
...Wouldn't it be nice if input lines were automatically chomped? In Perl 6, they can be. We just set the chomped property on the input handle referred to by the global variable $*ARGS:
$*ARGS is chomped;This causes any normal read on the handle (see Inputs that output) to automatically pre-chomp the string it returns. Of course, like most other global punctuation variables, $/ has been banished from Perl 6, so the trailing character sequence to be chomped is specified by the handle's own insep (input separator) property instead.
[Update: Rather, the newline property.]
The asterisk in $*ARGS indicates that the variable is the one from the special global namespace. If the asterisk is omitted, it's probably still the one from the special global namespace -- unless you declared a lexical or package variable of the same name. You can pronounce * as "standard", if that helps.
[Update: The * is not optional unless you import $ARGS from GLOBAL or use "no strict".]
By the way, it's called $*ARGS because it lets us access the files passed as a Perl 6 program's arguments (just as the Perl 5 ARGV filehandle provides access to the program's...err...argumentv).
Inputs that output
In the original Cookbook version of this program, the next line was:
for (print "Search? "; <>; print "Search? ") {This highlights a common situation for which there is no satisfactory solution in Perl 5. Namely: repeatedly prompting for input and reading it into $_, until EOF. In Perl 6, there's finally a clean way to do this -- with another property:
$ARGS prompts("Search? ");
while (<$ARGS>) {The first thing you'll notice is that reports of the diamond operator's death have been greatly exaggerated. Yes, even though the Second Apocalypse foretold its demise, Rule #2 has since been applied and the angle brackets live!
[Update: Rule #2 has been applied repeatedly since then, and <$ARGS> is very dead. But it gave its life in a good cause.]
Of course, they're slightly different in Perl 6, in that they require a handle object inside them (normally stored in a variable), but that's already possible in Perl 5 too.
Meanwhile, what about that prompt? Well, the Perl 6 solution is to allow input handles to have an associated character string that they print out just before they attempt to read in data.
Wait a minute!, I hear you object, Input handles that do output??? Actually, you've been using handles like that for decades. In most languages, every time you do a read from standard input, the first thing the input operation does is flush the standard output buffer. That's why something like:
print "nuqneH? ";
$request = <>;pre-prints the prompt correctly, even though it doesn't end in a newline.
So input and output mechanisms are already carrying on a secret relationship. The only change here is that now you're allowed to have the input handle add a little something to the output before it flushes the buffer. That's done with the prompts property. If an input handle has that property, its value is written to $*OUT just before the input handle reads. So we can replace:
for (print "Search? "; <>; print "Search? ";) { # Perl 5 (or 6)with
$ARGS prompts("Search? "); # Perl 6
while (<$ARGS>) {Technically, that should of course be:
$ARGS is prompts("Search? ");but that grates unbearably. Fortunately the is is optional in contexts -- such as this one -- where it can be inferred.
[Update: Nowadays that might just be:
$*ARGS.prompt = "Search? ";]
Note that, because the is operation returns its left operand (even when the is is invisible!), we could also use the rather elegant:
while (<$ARGS prompts("Search? ")>) {In fact, this one-line version may often be preferable, since the value of the prompts property might be changed somewhere inside the loop and this resets it on each iteration.
The exact semantics of the prompting mechanism aren't nailed down yet, so it may also be possible to use a subroutine reference as a dynamic prompt (the handle would call the subroutine before each read and pre-print the return value).
Haven't we met before? (part 1)
Having requested and read in a value, the search-and-report code is almost entirely familiar:
if (my $node = search($root, $_)) {
print "Found $_ at $node: $node{VALUE}\n"
print "(again!)\n" if $node{VALUE}.Found > 1;
}
else {
print "No $_ in tree\n"
}
}The only lurking Perl6ism is the use of the user-defined Found property to report repeated searches.
The call to $node{VALUE}.Found would normally be a method call (in Perl 6 -> is spelled .). But since $node{VALUE} is just a regular unblessed int, there is no Found method to call. So Perl treats the request as a property query instead and returns (an alias to) the corresponding property.
[Update: This has all been unified, so Found would be a real method.)
Take that! And that!
In Perl 6, subroutines can -- optionally -- specify proper parameter lists (as opposed to the not-evil-just-misunderstood argument context prototypes that Perl 5 allows).
For instance the insert subroutine, declares itself to take two parameters:
sub insert (HASH $tree is rw, int $val) {The first parameter specifies that the first argument must be a reference to a hash and is to be assigned to the lexical variable $tree. Defining the first parameter to be a hash reference means that any attempt to use it in some other way (e.g. trying to do an subroutine call through it, trying to pass it an explicit array reference, etc.) can be caught and punished -- at compile-time.
It's important to understand that, by default, named parameters are not like the elements of @_. Specifically, even though each argument is passed to its corresponding parameter by reference (for efficiency), the parameter variable itself is automatically declared constant, so any attempt to assign to it results in a compile-time error. This is intended to reduce the incidence of people accidentally people shooting themselves in the foot.
Of course, this being Perl, when we really do need to draw a bead on those metatarsals, we can. To allow assignments to a named parameter -- assignments that will propagate back to the original argument -- we need to to declare the parameter with the standard rw (read-write) property. It then becomes an fully assignable alias for the original argument, which in this example allows us to autovivify it (see We don't need no stinking backslashes).
The @_ argument array is still available in Perl 6, but only when we declare subroutines in the Perl 5 manner -- without a parameter list. See A good, old-fashioned show).
The second parameter of insert is defined to take an integer value. By using the type int instead of INT, we're once again explicitly promising not to do bizarre things with the referent (at least, not within the body of insert). The compiler might be able to use this information to optimize the subroutine's code in some way.
A sigil is for life, not just for value type
Long ago, when the Earth was new and Perl was young and clean, the type of sigil ($, @, or %) that was associated with a variable described what it evaluated to. For example:
print $x; # $x evaluates to scalar
print $y[1]; # $y[1] evaluates to scalar
print $z{a}; # $z{a} evaluates to scalar
print $yref->[1]; # $yref->[1] evaluates to scalar
print $zref->{a}; # $zref->{a} evaluates to scalar
print @y; # @y evaluates to list
print @y[2,3]; # @y[2,3] evaluates to list
print @z{'b','c'}; # @z{'b','c'} evaluates to list
print @{$yref}[2,3]; # @{$yref}[2,3] evaluates to list
print @{$zref}{'b','c'}; # @{zyref}{'b','c'} evaluates to list
print %z; # %z evaluates to hashRegardless of the actual type of the variable being referred to, a leading $ on the access meant the result would be a scalar; a leading @ meant a list; a leading %, a hash.
But then the serpent of OO entered the garden, and offered Perlkind the bitter fruit of subroutine and method calls:
print $subref->();
print $objref->method();Now the leading $ no longer indicated the type of value returned. And in beginners' Perl classes across the land there arose a great wailing and a gnashing of teeth.
Perl 6 returns us to a state of grace -- albeit a state of different grace --in which each variable type has One True Sigil, from which it never strays.
In Perl 6, a scalar always has a leading $, an array always has a leading @ (even when accessing its elements or slicing it), and a hash always has a leading % (even when accessing its entries or slicing it).
In other words, the sigil no longer (sometimes) indicates the type of the resulting value. Instead, it (always) tells you exactly what kind of variable you're messing about with, regardless of what kind of messing about you're doing.
The insert subroutine has several examples of this new syntax. The most obvious are in the autovivification of an empty subtree at the start of the subroutine:
unless ($tree) {
my %node;
%node{LEFT} = undef;
%node{RIGHT} = undef;
%node{VALUE} = $valEven though we're accessing the %node hash's entries, the variable retains its % sigil and the hash access braces are simply appended to the complete variable name.
Likewise, to access the element of an array, we simply append the array-access square brackets to the variable name: @array[1]. This is a significant departure from Perl 5 syntax. In Perl 5, @array[1] is a one-element slice of the @array array; in Perl 6, it's a direct single element access (no slicing involved).
This means, of course, that Perl 6 will require some revised array-slicing semantics. Larry's planning to take that opportunity to beef up Perl's slicing facilities and provide for arbitrary slicing and dicing of multidimensional arrays. But that's for a future Apocalypse.
For the time being, it's enough to know that, if you put a single scalar in the square brackets, you get a single element look-up; if you put a list in the brackets, you get a slice.
[Update: Lvalue slices now require parens around then whole left side.]
Haven't we met before? (part 2)
The last assignment to a %node entry has one other little twist. The (copy of the) value being assigned is also ascribed a Found property, initialized to the value zero:
%node{VALUE} = $val is Found(0);Once again, that works because, when a property is set using is, the result of the operation is the left operand (in this case $val), not the new value of the property.
Indeed, although we glossed over it at the time, that's the only reason the:
while (<$ARGS prompts("Search? ")>) {syntax actually worked. The expression $ARGS prompts("Search? ") set the handle's prompt, and then returned $ARGS, which became the operand of the diamond operator, resulting in a prompt-and-read operation through that handle.
We don't need no stinking backslashes
Once the new %node is initialized, a reference to it needs to be assigned to the variable that was passed as the first argument (if it's not clear why, see section 12.3.2 of Object Oriented Perl for a detailed explanation of this tree-manipulation technique).
In Perl 5, modifying an original argument would require an assignment to $_[0] (i.e. @_[0] in Perl 6), but because we declared $tree to be rw, we can assign directly to it and have the original argument change appropriately:
$tree = %node;Oops, (you're probably thinking), he just fell victim to one of the Classic Blunders: In a scalar context, a hash evaluates to the ratio of used buckets to allocated buckets!
In Perl 5 maybe, but in Perl 6 that near-useless behaviour has gone the way of the powdered wigs, buggy whips, and DSL providers. Instead, when evaluated in a scalar context, a hash (or an array) returns a reference to itself. So the above line of code works correctly.
Okay, (you're now wondering), if arrays do that too, how do I get the length of an array??? The answer is that in a numeric context an array reference now evaluates to the length of the array. So the translation of the Perl 5 code:
while (@queue > 0) { # scalar eval of @queue yields lengthis:
while (@queue > 0) { # scalar eval of @queue yields ref to array
# ref to array in numeric context yields lengthSimilarly, in a boolean context, an array evaluates true if it contains any elements, so the translation of the Perl 5 code:
while (@queue) { # scalar eval of @queue yields lengthis:
while (@queue) { # boolean eval of @queue yields true if not emptyCunning, huh?
You say %node{VALUE}, but I say $tree{VALUE}
When we were loading up the new node, we wrote %node{VALUE} to access its 'VALUE' entry. Now that $tree holds a reference to %node, we need some way of accessing the same entry.
In Perl 5 that would be:
$tree->{VALUE} # Perl 5 entry access through hash ref in $treeAnd since -> is spelled . in Perl 6, that becomes:
$tree.{VALUE} # Perl 6 entry access through hash ref in $treeHowever, since the direct hash access syntax now uses a completely different sigil -- %node{VALUE} -- the . isn't needed for disambiguation there and hence can be made optional:
$tree{VALUE} # Perl 6 entry access through hash ref in $treeAnd that's the usual way accesses to hash references will be written:
if ($tree{VALUE} > $val) { insert($tree{LEFT}, $val) }
elsif ($tree{VALUE} < $val) { insert($tree{RIGHT}, $val) }
else { warn "dup insert of $val\n" }
}This is actually far less confusing than it might at first seem. For example, back in Haven't we met before? (part 1), did you notice that:
if (my $node = search($root, $_)) {
print "Found $_ at $node: $node{VALUE}\n"already used this new syntax?
In Perl 5 that would have been a (very common) error -- the second line would print an entry of %node, when we actually wanted an entry of %{$node}. But in Perl 6, it just Does What We Mean.
And, of course, access through other kinds of references will also allow the . to be omitted: $arr_ref[$index] and $sub_ref(@args).
Here's a handy conversion table:
Access through... Perl 5 Perl 6
================= ====== ======
Scalar variable $foo $foo
Array variable $foo[$n] @foo[$n]
Hash variable $foo{$k} %foo{$k}
Array reference $foo->[$n] $foo[$n] (or $foo.[$n])
Hash reference $foo->{$k} $foo{$k} (or $foo.{$k})
Code reference $foo->(@a) $foo(@a) (or $foo.(@a))
Array slice @foo[@ns] @foo[@ns]
Hash slice @foo{@ks} %foo{@ks}A good, old-fashioned show
The show subroutine illustrates the optional nature of parameter lists. Here we omit the parameter specifications entirely, and get the good old familiar "take-any-number-of-arguments-and-stick-them-all-in-@_" semantics.
Indeed, apart from its DWIM-ier array access syntax, the show subroutine is vanilla Perl 5:
sub show {
return unless @_[0];
show(@_[0]{LEFT}, @_[1]) unless @_[1] == $post;
show(@_[0]{RIGHT},@_[1]) if @_[1] == $pre;
print @_[0]{VALUE};
show(@_[0]{LEFT}, @_[1]) if @_[1] == $post;
show(@_[0]{RIGHT},@_[1]) unless @_[1] == $pre;
}And that, we believe, will be the normal experience when moving from 5 to 6: Perl will still be Perl...only slightly more so.
[Update: Well, it has to be a little more so now that curlies don't autoquote.]
Of course, the show subroutine is moderately funky Perl anyway, so if symmetrically guarded repetitions of the left- and right- subtree traversals aren't your maintenance dream, this would also be the ideal place to use Perl's new case statement.
But that won't be unveiled until Apocalypse 4, so if you could just look at this little red light....<FLASH>...Thank-you.
Search me
The parameter list of the search subroutine is interesting because it's a hybrid of the old and new Perl semantics:
sub search (HASH $tree is rw, *@_) {Both parameter's are explicitly declared, but the second declaration (*@_) causes the remaining parameters to be collected in @_. There's nothing magical about @_ there: if the second declaration had been *@others, the rest of the arguments would have turned up in @others.
The asterisk in the second parameter tells Perl 6 that the corresponding argument position is a plain ol' list context, so that any arguments there (or thereafter) should be treated as a single list and assigned to the corresponding parameter variable. It's the equivalent of the Perl 5 @ prototype.
In contrast, a parameter declaration of @param, is the equivalent of Perl 5's \@ prototype -- and explicitly requires an array variable as the corresponding argument.
Notice that, because we started collecting arguments in @_ from the second parameter, the value we're looking for (i.e. the second argument) is referred to as @_[0], not @_[1]:
return search($tree{@_[0]<$tree{VALUE} && "LEFT" || "RIGHT"}, @_[0])
unless $tree{VALUE} == @_[0];Haven't we met before? (part 3)
The second last line of search is where all the Perl 6 action is. Having worked out that we're already at the desired node, we're going to return it. But we also need to increment its Found property, which we do like so:
$tree{VALUE} is Found($tree{VALUE}.Found+1);This highlights two of the three ways of accessing a property: the read-write . syntax, and the write-only is operator.
If a property is accessed as if it were a method, its value can be set by passing the new value as an argument. Whether such a value is passed or not, the result of the operation is an alias (i.e. an lvalue) for the property itself. So we could also increment the values's Found property like this:
$tree{VALUE}.Found($tree{VALUE}.Found+1);or, like this:
$tree{VALUE}.Found++;The is syntax, on the other hand, can only set a property, because the is operation returns its left operand (the referent that owns the property), not the value of property itself. This is often highly useful, however, for last-minute property setting in a return statement:
return $result is Verified;Another very common usage is expected to be in returning zero-but-true and non-zero-but-false values:
sub my_system ($shell_command) {
...
return $error is false if $error;
return 0 is true;
}The third way of accessing a property is via the prop meta-property, which returns a reference to a hash containing all the properties of a referent:
$tree{VALUE}.prop{Found}++;You can also use this feature to list all the properties that a referent has been ascribed:
for (keys %{$tree.prop}) {
print "$_: $tree{VALUE}.prop{$key}\n";
}By the way, in Apocalypse 2, Larry waggishly referred to the prop meta-property as btw, but with the help of modern therapeutic techniques, he's now gotten over the idea.
[Update: Got over the prop idea as well. Properties really are just methods now.]
Coda on an earlier theme
This article has illustrated several important new features that Perl 6 will provide. But don't let all that newness scare you. Perl has always offered the ability to code at your own level and in the style that suits you best. That's not going to change, even if the style that suits you best is Perl 5.
Almost every new feature covered here will be optional, and if you choose not to use them, you can still write the same program in a manner that is very close to Perl 5. Like so:
use strict;
use warnings;
my ($root, $n);
while ($n++ < 20) { insert($root, int rand 1000) }
my ($pre, $in, $post) = (0..2);
print "Pre order: "; show($root,$pre); print " \n";
print "In order: "; show($root,$in); print " \n";
print "Post order: "; show($root,$post); print " \n";
for (print "Search? "; <$ARGS>; print "Search? ") {
chomp;
if (my $node = search($root, $_)) {
print "Found $_ at $node: $node{VALUE}\n";
print "(again!)\n" if $node{FOUND} > 1;
}
else {
print "No $_ in tree\n";
}
}
exit;
#########################################
sub insert {
unless (@_[0]) {
@_[0] = { LEFT => undef, RIGHT => undef,
VALUE => @_[1], FOUND => 0,
};
return;
}
if (@_[0]{VALUE} > @_[1]) { insert(@_[0]{LEFT}, @_[1]) }
elsif (@_[0]{VALUE} < @_[1]) { insert(@_[0]{RIGHT}, @_[1]) }
else { warn "dup insert of @_[1]\n" }
}
sub show {
return unless @_[0];
show(@_[0]{LEFT}, @_[1]) unless @_[1] == $post;
show(@_[0]{RIGHT},@_[1]) if @_[1] == $pre;
print @_[0]{VALUE};
show(@_[0]{LEFT}, @_[1]) if @_[1] == $post;
show(@_[0]{RIGHT},@_[1]) unless @_[1] == $pre;
}
sub search {
return unless @_[0];
return search(@_[0]{@_[1]<@_[0]{VALUE} && "LEFT" || "RIGHT"}, @_[1])
unless @_[0]{VALUE} == @_[1];
@_[0]{FOUND}++;
return @_[0];
}In fact, that's only 40 characters (out of 1779) from being pure Perl 5. And almost all of those differences are @'s instead of $'s at the start of array element look-ups.
98% backwards compatibility even without an automatic p52p6 translator...pretty slick!
[Update: Well, it's not quite that backward compatible anymore.]