in reply to Arrays in arrays, how to access them

Hi viored, and welocome to the monestary!

The following should give you a good start: perldsc perlref

Not knowing more about what you are doing, for your sub call, I might do something like:

subcall( \@{$M[0]} );
Which passes a reference to the first array in @M.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Arrays in arrays, how to access them
by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Oct 30, 2013 at 12:33 UTC
    subcall( \@{$M[0]} );

    Which passes a reference to the first array in @M.

    So it does, but if the array  @M is initialized per something like
        my @M = (\@a1, \@a2, \@a3);
    then the elements of  @M are all array references to begin with, so why not just
        subcall($M[0]);
    and avoid taking a reference to a de-referenced array reference?

    (And see also perllol "Manipulating Arrays of Arrays in Perl".) (Update: And also perlreftut.)

      When I use
      subcall( $M[0] );
      I get ARRAY(0xa07b5d8), not a the output of the function I'm interested in. Same thing for
      subcall( \@{M[0]} )
      What am I missing?
      Ah, but if I use
      subcall ( @{\@{$M[0]}} )
      It works. Thank you so much, both of of you.
        subcall( $M[0] );

        Assuming that  @M is initialized as shown in Re^2: Arrays in arrays, how to access them, you get, in this instance, an array reference passed to the  subcall() function because that's what element 0 of the  @M array is.

        subcall( \@{M[0]} )

        In this instance (assuming it's fixed to
            subcall( \@{$M[0]} )
        by adding the missing  $ sigil), you have, working from the inside out:

        • an array reference:  $M[0]
        • de-referenced to an array:  @{$M[0]}
        • to which a reference is taken:  \@{$M[0]}
        • this reference then being passed to a function:  subcall( \@{$M[0]} )
        In this instance, you're simply wrapping the access to  $M[0] in a redundant pair of complementary operations — and maybe in this case the compiler would even be smart enough to optimize away the redundancy! It's as if you had asked "Why do the two function calls
            func($x);
        and
            func($x + 1729 - 137 - 1729 + 137);
        both pass the same value to the function?"

        Ah, but if I use
        subcall ( @{\@{$M[0]}} )
        ...

        If you use
            subcall ( @{\@{$M[0]}} )
        you extend the process of the second instance above to de-reference the array reference created (redundantly) by  \@{$M[0]} and pass an array (in the example, the  @a1 array) to the  subcall() function, which is apparently what it takes to make that function happy.

        >perl -wMstrict -le "my @a1 = qw(a b c); my @a2 = qw(p q r); my @a3 = qw(x y z); my @M = (\@a1, \@a2, \@a3); ;; print $M[0]; print \@{$M[0]}; ;; print 'array references are the same' if $M[0] == \@{$M[0]}; ;; print qq{-@{\@{$M[0]}}- -@{$M[0]}-}; " ARRAY(0x43281c) ARRAY(0x43281c) array references are the same -a b c- -a b c-

        (Also see perlreftut.)