That's what Taulmarill meant.
Basically: an "empty" array can have any size, but an empty list always has size 0.
UPDATE: that should show it...
DB<1> @a[3..5]=()
DB<2> @b[3..5]=()
DB<3> print scalar @a
6
DB<4> print ( () = @a,@b )
DB<5> @c= @a,@b
DB<6> print scalar @c
6
DB<7> @c=(@a,@b)
DB<8> print scalar @c
12
DB<9> print ( () = (@a,@b) )
DB<10> push @a,@b
DB<11> print scalar @a
12
DB<12> x @a
0 undef
1 undef
2 undef
3 undef
4 undef
5 undef
6 undef
7 undef
8 undef
9 undef
10 undef
11 undef
Line 12 clearly shows, that concatenating two "empty" arrays leads to a larger "empty" array...
Anyway the difference between line 5 and 7 is somehow surprising ...
UPDATE: Aaaaaargh!!! 8)
In line 5, I fell into the scalar comma operator trap again ... it's basically (@c=@a),(@b)
|