Re: set context for method's return values

you can also: print +(split /,/, 'A,B,C,D')[2]

where the + sign avoid the warning print (...) interpreted as function

> return value as an array ..

Technically using () we are creating a list, not an array: we can access the Nth element but, for example, we cannot push to it.

PS the phrase about parens was related to this usage, not their general use; see below..

There are no rules, there are no thumbs..
Reinvent the wheel, then learn The Wheel; may be one day you reinvent one of THE WHEELS.

Comment on Re: set context for method's return values Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: set context for method's return values by LanX (Saint) on Jan 25, 2022 at 10:20 UTC
> Technically using () we are creating a list, Sorry that's not fully correct, `()[]` resp. `(EXPR)[SLICE]` is "creating a list" `(EXPR)` alone affects only precedence, no list context is propagated. for completeness: `()` is an empty list `(EXPR)=` is a list assignment Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: set context for method's return values by rsFalse (Chaplain) on Jan 29, 2022 at 11:59 UTC
`>> <...> ()[] resp. (EXPR)[SLICE] is "creating a list"` Once I wrote more on this with examples: Forcing list context. Brackets (with list within) as an unary right-associative operator	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: set context for method's return values by demoralizer (Beadle) on Jan 25, 2022 at 15:25 UTC
Every once in a while I see that plus sign you used to suppress warnings, but so far I haven't been able to find an explanation for it. Do you have any keywords for me to search for to dig a little deeper into this topic, please?	[reply]
Re^3: set context for method's return values by Fletch (Bishop) on Jan 25, 2022 at 15:40 UTC
Not exactly sure but "unary plus" might get you on the right track. Basically the plus doesn't change the value but tells the parser after it's seen `print` that the next parens it sees aren't for it ("I am altering the parse tree. Pray I don't alter it further." — Darth Syntaxus). The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: set context for method's return values by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jan 25, 2022 at 17:23 UTC
My explanation of unary-"+"	[reply]
Re^3: set context for method's return values by BillKSmith (Monsignor) on Jan 26, 2022 at 14:16 UTC
The explanation of `+(` is in the first section of the documentation of print. Be careful not to follow the print keyword with a left parenthesis unless you want the corresponding right parenthesis to terminate the arguments to the print; put parentheses around all arguments (or interpose a +, but that doesn't look as good). Bill	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: set context for method's return values (unary plus) by LanX (Saint) on Jan 25, 2022 at 16:36 UTC
I have to admit that it confused me for a long time too. I thought it's akin to `0+` which enforces scalar context and numeric casting (also in other languages like JS). But it's basically a No-OP which separates a function from the parens, such that the parens are not interpreted as part of the function call. It has sufficiently low precedence and doesn't meddle with context: `DB<9> say ("a".."c")[1] syntax error at (eval 18)[c:/Strawberry/perl/lib/perl5db.pl:738] line +2, near ")[" DB<10> say (("a".."c")[1]) # how it works b DB<11> say +("a".."c")[1] # avoid extra parens b DB<12> say +("a".."c")[1..2] # LIST uneffected bc DB<13>` [download] Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: set context for method's return values (unary plus) by rsFalse (Chaplain) on Jan 29, 2022 at 11:47 UTC
>> I have to admit that it confused me for a long time too. Confused me also, e.g.: u+ fails to force scalar context to empty list assignment: +( () = ... )	[reply]
Re^4: set context for method's return values (unary plus) by demoralizer (Beadle) on Feb 01, 2022 at 07:47 UTC
Thanks again for all the really interesting answers, it's a bit clearer now but still confusing. I'm sure a deeper understanding will come with time :)	[reply]