Re^2: A different OO approach

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: A different OO approach by adrianh (Chancellor) on Dec 15, 2002 at 03:22 UTC
++ That is very nice. I didn't realise that you could use my and \() like that. Learn something new every day! The only pain is that you have to remember to do: `my @A = \my %Foo;` [download] not `my @A = \my (%Foo);` [download] ... which could lead to some nasty buggettes if you're not careful.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: A different OO approach by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Dec 15, 2002 at 03:32 UTC
Odd. I didn't even notice. I'm not sure I understand - I shuffled parens around but there's no difference. This is funny and sort of embarrassing.. what am I missing? Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re^5: A different OO approach by adrianh (Chancellor) on Dec 15, 2002 at 03:37 UTC
A single hash is a special case with \(). From perlref. As a special case, "\(@foo)" returns a list of refer- ences to the contents of @foo, not a reference to @foo itself. Likewise for %foo, except that the key refer- ences are to copies (since the keys are just strings rather than full-fledged scalars). Annoying eh?	[reply]
Re^6: A different OO approach by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Dec 15, 2002 at 12:05 UTC
Re: Re^2: A different OO approach by shotgunefx (Parson) on Dec 15, 2002 at 20:40 UTC
I thought I remembered seeing it done something like that. I had tried my \(%Attr1,%Attr2,%Attr3). Thanks for the tip. -Lee "To be civilized is to deny one's nature."	[reply]