I did say I was being pedantic. :-)

I do think that its best to define lingo when you present it though. A short explanation like "an anonymous array or hash doesn't have a name and is accessible only through a reference" can eliminate a lot of misunderstanding. Suggesting that an array could contain "a reference to an array" or "an anonymous array" is a tad misleading.

The Camel plays a little loose with the term, even going by its own glossary defintion. But then again, it actually has a glossary which explains exactly what an anonymous referent is.

For the record, I don't think there is anything wrong with using the shorter "hash of anonymous arrays" to the long-winded precision of "hash of references to anonymous arrays." Afterall, once you know what an anonymous array is, you know that a reference must, by definition, be involved. I also think that it is perfectly fine to call an "hash of array references" an "hash of arrays."

But I do think it is confusing to speak of a hash which holds array references or anonymous arrays because anonymous arrays are array references (in this loose usage.)

Did I say something about being long-winded?

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";