Re (tilly) 1: Considering hash slices, past, present and future

If you want a syntax where things line up, just write a function:

# Takes a hash reference and a list of key/value pairs.
# Assigns those keys to those values in the hash
sub add_to_hash {
  my $h_ref = shift;
  while (@_) {
    my $key = shift;
    my $value = shift;
    $h_ref{$key} = $value;
  }
}
[download]

Now it is easy to get the syntax you want:

add_to_hash(\%my_hash,
  key1 => "value1",
  key2 => "value2",
  # ...
);
[download]

UPDATE
Fixed typo pointed out by grinder.

Comment on Re (tilly) 1: Considering hash slices, past, present and future Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
(bbfu) (syntax suga) Re2: (tilly) 1: Considering hash slices, past, present and future by bbfu (Curate) on Oct 26, 2001 at 07:14 UTC
Coincidentally, I was thinking just last week about writing a Tie::StdHash module that overloaded addition for just such an effect... I was curious, do you think that would be overkill for what amounts to just some syntatic sugar? Would it be better to just go with a simple function call, or is there perhaps some worth to be found in creating a whole module/class devoted to adding (and perhaps subtracting) hashes? bbfu Seasons don't fear The Reaper. Nor do the wind, the sun, and the rain. We can be like they are.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

(bbfu) (syntax suga) Re2: (tilly) 1: Considering hash slices, past, present and future
by bbfu (Curate) on Oct 26, 2001 at 07:14 UTC

Coincidentally, I was thinking just last week about writing a Tie::StdHash module that overloaded addition for just such an effect...

I was curious, do you think that would be overkill for what amounts to just some syntatic sugar? Would it be better to just go with a simple function call, or is there perhaps some worth to be found in creating a whole module/class devoted to adding (and perhaps subtracting) hashes?

bbfu
Seasons don't fear The Reaper.
Nor do the wind, the sun, and the rain.
We can be like they are.

[reply]