Re^7: Getting for() to accept a tied array in one statement

I don't understand, what you call 'not an array reference' is what I call 'object', so don't we mean the same thing?

In:

use ar ;
my @ar ;
my $art = tie @ar, "ar" ;
@ar = (1, 2) ;
[download]

My point is, I cannot know what $art is, so to me this is a big no no:

   my @ar-deref = @{$art};
[download]

Comment on Re^7: Getting for() to accept a tied array in one statement Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: Getting for() to accept a tied array in one statement by hdb (Monsignor) on Apr 16, 2019 at 14:29 UTC
Agree. But the following is perfectly ok IMHO `for(@ar) { print "$_\n"; }` [download]	[reply] [d/l]
Re^9: Getting for() to accept a tied array in one statement by Veltro (Hermit) on Apr 16, 2019 at 14:49 UTC
Yes, that is perfectly fine IMO too	[reply]
Re^8: Getting for() to accept a tied array in one statement by haukex (Archbishop) on Apr 18, 2019 at 20:22 UTC
My point is, I cannot know what $art is, so to me this is a big no no: `my @ar-deref = @{$art};` Yes, I agree that is bad (unless `$art` overloads `@{}`), but in the code you showed here, `for (tie @ary, "My::Class")`, there is no such "bad" de-reference of the return value of tie happening, not even an implicit one. `for (tie @ary, "My::Class") { print "$x\n" }` will just print something like `My::Class=HASH(0x...)` - as perlancar said, it's just looping over a one-element list, the return value of tie, and not the elements of `@{$art}`, as you seemed to be worried about.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^9: Getting for() to accept a tied array in one statement by Veltro (Hermit) on Apr 19, 2019 at 08:35 UTC
I absolutely agree with that too. I just interpreted a different intent: `for (tie @ary, "My::Class", "some", "el", "ems") { ... } # NOPE # This makes for() only loops over a single value, the tied object.` [download] If the intention was to iterate over the 'object' then a possible solution would be to use a de-reference. However I felt this would be a bad idea and decided to point this out. But it doesn't matter, everyone has proposed solutions that are much better. Esp. the solution hdb has found now using the lvalue sub is absolutely fantastic.	[reply] [d/l]