That's rather cryptic to me°, please exemplify the data-structures.
Or just use better names! ;)
I'm pretty sure that in the end %id is a misnomer, and something like %record or just the name of the corresponding DB.TABLE would be far more appropriate ...
(update)
... cause this looks a lot like a DBI->fetchall_hashref()
Regarding @id, (again) if it's an array use plural @ids .
°) I have no ID ... ;-) | [reply] [d/l] [select] |
%record sucks if you are processing lots of different data. id is just an example. And yes, 90% of that indead stems (indirectly) from DBI related $sth->fetchrow_hashref ()s, so I likely will have ($tab1, @tab1, %tab1), ($tab2, @tab2, %tab2) etc all eventually combined into the final %rec (or similar).
Anyway, TIMTOWTDI and I LOVE the possibility to do it like this, cause it is easy to *my* mind. (and being the only perl programmer dealing with the code, I can do whatever I want, and thus I am always right and do not have to argue!)
Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn
| [reply] [d/l] [select] |
> TIMTOWTDI ... I LOVE ... easy to my mind.
and since I'm proposing a pragma protecting legacy code, you are free to keep it this way.
update
but I still kind of doubt you are processing a DB.table called "ID".
| [reply] |