in reply to new keyword "size" to avoid scalar trap ? ( scalar @array != scalar(LIST) )

LanX:

With the scalar operator and arrays evaluating to their length in scalar contect, I don't see a need for it. But if someone decided to change perl to do something like this, I'd rather see them overload length to accept a hash, array or reference to a hash or array.

...roboticus

When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like your thumb.

  • Comment on Re: new keyword "size" to avoid scalar trap ? ( scalar @array != scalar(LIST) )

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: new keyword "size" to avoid scalar trap ? ( scalar @array != scalar(LIST) )
by LanX (Saint) on Dec 07, 2012 at 17:22 UTC
    > I don't see a need for it.

    Honestly, did you immediately spot the problem in BUK's code?

    Re: Idiom to return 0 or random number of array elements

    UPDATE:

    Do you really prefer explaining goatse "op"  =()= and turtle "op" @{[ ]} to newbes who simply need to count the elements a function returns?

    UPDATE:

    > I'd rather see them overload length to accept a hash, array or reference to a hash or array.

    Then it's quite impossible to tell what length ($str) is supposed to return. 1 for the list-size or the char-size of $str?

    Cheers Rolf

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

      LanX:

      No, I didn't notice the error. And I've never used goatse, turtle or kite. Perhaps if I had, I'd see the need for it.

      As far as the practicality of what length $str is supposed to return, I didn't give it much thought. I was just expressing my color preference for new new shed out back. ;^)

      ...roboticus

      When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like your thumb.

[reply]

In Section Meditations