in reply to Re^9: Experimental features: autoderef vs postfix deref
in thread Experimental features: autoderef vs postfix deref

Indeed I don't believe you don't understand. But, just in case:
$foo->{bar}->{baz}->{quux}; $foo->{bar}->{baz}->{quux}->@*; ${ ${ ${$foo}{bar} }{baz} }{quux}; @{ ${ ${ ${$foo}{bar} }{baz} }{quux} };
I don't see why ->@* in the left-to-right version doesn't enhance readability just as much as the previous part of the expression, compared to the inside-out version. I must also say that writing the inside-out version was difficult for me, and reading it, even more so. If $foo->{bar} is better then ${ $foo }{bar}, then I don't see why $foo->@* isn't equally better then @{ $foo }. You feel differently, so how about you explain why circumfix is worse in some situations, but becomes better 'at the top level'. "I can tell at a glance" isn't a good explanation because slices exist, e.g.:  for ( @{ $foo->{bar} }{"a", "b", "c", "e"} ) .... You can't even tell "at a glance" you're dealing with a hash!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^11: Experimental features: autoderef vs postfix deref
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jul 14, 2015 at 02:00 UTC

    Your wrong! I'm right! End of. (Its as logical an argument as yours is.)