Why on earth would you have %wow1, %wow2, and %wow3, instead of %{$wow[1]}, %{$wow[2]}, and %{$wow[3]}? In other words, instead of:
%wow1 = ( key => value, key => value ); %wow2 = ( key => value, key => value );
You could have...
@wow = ( { key => value, key => value }, { key => value, key => value }, );
Which is an array of hashes, instead of a bunch of hashes loosely related by naming convention.
I see no advantage to polluting your package global namespace with variable names that are tricky to manipulate when you could just create a single AoH structure.
Dave
In reply to Re^3: How to correctly use a symbolic reference to automatically generate hash names?
by davido
in thread How to correctly use a symbolic reference to automatically generate hash names?
by lightoverhead
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |