•Re: Re: •Re: On Declaration

But again I dont think these conceptual problem are much of anything unless you start hacking internals or doing funky mojo.

Well, one very practical outcome of keeping terminology correct about "Array of Hashes" vs "Arrayref of Hashrefs" is that the word "ref" there implies a dereferencing must happen, and that indeed is visible, and important.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

Comment on •Re: Re: •Re: On Declaration

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: •Re: Re: •Re: On Declaration by demerphq (Chancellor) on Jun 15, 2003 at 13:48 UTC
True enough. I more meant the mental tangle that you can get in if you think of a reference to an array as being the same as the scalar that holds the reference. On face value its an obvious distinction, but I think people often get confused when scalars and scalar references get involved. For instance (and I know you know this one) how many variables are there in the following code `my ($x,$y); $x=\$y; $y=\$x; my $aref=[$x,$y];` [download] Anyway. :-) --- demerphq _{<Elian> And I do take a kind of perverse pleasure in having an OO assembly language...}	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: •Re: Re: •Re: On Declaration
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Jun 15, 2003 at 13:48 UTC

True enough. I more meant the mental tangle that you can get in if you think of a reference to an array as being the same as the scalar that holds the reference. On face value its an obvious distinction, but I think people often get confused when scalars and scalar references get involved. For instance (and I know you know this one) how many variables are there in the following code

my ($x,$y);
$x=\$y;
$y=\$x;
my $aref=[$x,$y];
[download]

Anyway. :-)

_{<Elian> And I do take a kind of perverse pleasure in having an OO assembly language...}

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]