in reply to Re^4: Dereferencing in blessed object
in thread Dereferencing in blessed object

Could you give an example? I hope you are not referring to redundant -> arrows at deeper levels.

Quite the opposite, actually. By "equivalents" I was meaning the same syntax but for different data. eg. if we have $foo = { bar => [4, 5, 6] } and we want to operate on the array we can use @{$foo->{bar}} which is fine or @{$$foo{bar}} which, while valid, is a bit syntax heavy for my taste. (I like sigils but anything which starts off @{$$ is just asking to be clarified)

can you immediately tell if $$x{key} means ${$x}{key} or ${$x{key}} ?

I can but that's (a) from experience and (b) because sigils bind most tightly (as you said: precedence). It would not be a surprise to find that someone new to Perl would struggle with this too.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with the presumed majority who use the arrow most/all of the time. However I do recognise it is a subjective choice and don't criticise others for avoiding it.


🦛

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Dereferencing in blessed object
by LanX (Saint) on Feb 26, 2021 at 15:34 UTC
    > @{$foo->{bar}} which is fine

    personally I'd prefer having autoboxing methods

    $foo->{bar}->list() (and $foo->{bar}->push() etc ...) cause it reads from left to right

    > or @{$$foo{bar}} which, while valid, is a bit syntax heavy

    And eye and logic have to hop back and forth

    Tangential:

    my dream would be able to have a pragma dualmy which is automatically aliasing each %IDENT with it's ref $IDENT and vice versa.

    Perl would become easier to read and to understand.

    (no implementation details, it's a dream... ;-)

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
    Wikisyntax for the Monastery