Does that template exist in the documentation? The one I cited does.

Why not make your straw man ${ ${ $foo->{bar} }{baz} } = 4? A. Because that would be even more stupid.

Why not just $foo->{bar}{baz} = 4; the way 90% of people write it? A. because that would highlight how verbosely hieroglyphic the postfix syntax is ->@*.

Why not make your straw man ${ ${ $foo->{bar} }{baz} } = 4? A. Because that would be even more stupid.

:-) OK, let's try:

${ $foo->{bar}{baz} } = 4:
[download]

Still looks stupid?

What about:

@{ $foo->{bar}{baz} }[0, 5] = (3, 4);
[download]

I guess, also too stupid?

Let's try some more:

@{ $foo->{bar}{baz} }{ 'John', 'Jane', 'Bill' } = ('Smith') x 3;
[download]

Stupid?

If not, then why

${ $foo->{bar} }{baz} = 4;
[download]

becomes stupid? Maybe because you can actually avoid circumfix dereferencing here?

Why not just $foo->{bar}{baz} = 4; the way 90% of people write it?

That's what I'm asking. Why 90% of people try to avoid circumfix when they can?

Why 90% of people try to avoid circumfix when they can?

They're not "avoiding"; they just not adding what would be pointless.

Just as those in favour of postfix deref won't add: $foo->{bar}->{baz}->$* = 4;, because that would be equally pointless.

So, back to the real argument.

When explicit dereferencing is actually required, is push @{ $foo->{bar}{baz} }, 4;

Simpler, clearer, easier to scan and less ugly than push $foo->{bar}->{baz}->@*, 4;

And clearly the answer is yes. /c