Re: A simple backticks question

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: A simple backticks question by LanX (Saint) on Mar 17, 2014 at 16:32 UTC
Not fully correct, the backticks are context sensitive, in scalar context `ls -l` will return a concat of all lines. (a ~~list~~ arrayą in scalar context returns the number of lines) backtick/qx in perlop In scalar context, it comes back as a single (potentially multi- line) string, or undef if the command failed. In list context, returns a list of lines (however you’ve defined lines with $/ or $INPUT_RECORD_SEPARATOR), or an empty list if the command failed. Cheers Rolf ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language) updates ą) corrected, thanks to no_slogan. It very much depends on what the command within backticks returns.	[reply]
Re^3: A simple backticks question by no_slogan (Deacon) on Mar 17, 2014 at 16:36 UTC
Thanks for the correction, but again, not exactly correct. An array in scalar context evaluates to its number of elements. There is no such thing as a list in scalar context.	[reply]
Re^4: A simple backticks question by LanX (Saint) on Mar 17, 2014 at 16:49 UTC
well with exception of the empty list! ;-) `DB<124> $x = () => undef` [download] Cheers Rolf ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)	[reply] [d/l]