Re^17: Experimental features: autoderef vs postfix deref

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

Comment on Re^17: Experimental features: autoderef vs postfix deref Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^18: Experimental features: autoderef vs postfix deref by Anonymous Monk on Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18 UTC
Just as those in favour of postfix deref won't add: `$foo->{bar}->{baz}->$* = 4;`, because that would be equally pointless. :-) What would be pointful instead? (what is the equivalent but pointful expression?) 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;` Sure, just like `$foo->{bar}{baz} = 4;` [download] is simpler, clearer, easier to scan and less ugly than `${ $foo->{bar} }{baz} = 4;` [download] just like `$foo->{bar}{baz}->@[1, 2, 3] = (100, 200, 500);` [download] is simpler, clearer, easier to scan and less ugly than `@{ $foo->{bar}{baz} }[1, 2, 3] = (100, 200, 500);` [download] just like `$foo->{bar}{baz}->$ = 4;` [download] is simpler, clearer, easier to scan and less ugly than `${ $foo->{bar}{baz} } = 4;` [download] And I think no one is going to take `push @{ stuff }, stuff` away from you? Back to the real point Postderef is good for exactly the same reason that the existing `->` operator is good. Most people prefer to read and write in one direction (such as left-to-right) rather than inside-out. Postderef syntax is especially good for slices - `@{ $foo->{bar} }[1, 2, 3]` is 'pointless' for the same reason that `${ $foo->{bar} }{baz}` is 'pointless'. The reason is inside-out reading. I also don't see why it shouldn't work for the whole thing - you still get to read the expression left-to-right, so it's still just as good. If it works at all, it should work everywhere, including `push`, even if you some find it 'ugly' or 'pointless'.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^18: Experimental features: autoderef vs postfix deref
by Anonymous Monk on Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18 UTC

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;

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

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

$foo->{bar}{baz}->@[1, 2, 3] = (100, 200, 500);
[download]

@{ $foo->{bar}{baz} }[1, 2, 3] = (100, 200, 500);
[download]

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

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

push @{ stuff }, stuff

Back to the real point

->

@{ $foo->{bar} }[1, 2, 3]

${ $foo->{bar} }{baz}

push

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]