G'day Bill,

That's certainly a valid way to go. Consider the following:

$ perl -e '
    use strict;
    use warnings;

    use Test::More tests => 8;

    my $h = { b => {} };
    my ($f, $f2, $f3, $f4);

    $f = $h->{b}{c}{d} if exists($h->{b}{c}) and exists($h->{b}{c}{d})
+;
    is_deeply( $h, { b => {} }, "no autovivification" );
    is( $f, undef, "no value assigned" );

    $f2 = $h->{b}{c}{d} if exists $h->{b}{c};
    is_deeply $h, { b => {} }, "f2: no autovivification";
    is $f2, undef, "f2: no value assigned";

    $f3 = $h->{b}{c}{d}{x}{y}{z} if
            exists $h->{b}{c}
        and exists $h->{b}{c}{d}
        and exists $h->{b}{c}{d}{x}
        and exists $h->{b}{c}{d}{x}{y};
    is_deeply $h, { b => {} }, "f3: no autovivification";
    is $f3, undef, "f3: no value assigned";

    $f4 = $h->{b}{c}{d}{x}{y}{z};
    delete $h->{b}{c};
    is_deeply $h, { b => {} }, "f4: autovivification removed";
    is $f4, undef, "f4: no value assigned";
'
[download]

Update: The code above is a modification of the original. Something was niggling me about what I first wrote, but I couldn't see the problem. ++hv's response to your post alerted me to the issue. My first, less-than-good effort is in the spoiler below. Note that the output is unchanged.

<Reveal this spoiler or all in this thread>

Output:

1..8
ok 1 - no autovivification
ok 2 - no value assigned
ok 3 - f2: no autovivification
ok 4 - f2: no value assigned
ok 5 - f3: no autovivification
ok 6 - f3: no value assigned
ok 7 - f4: autovivification removed
ok 8 - f4: no value assigned
[download]

• Short-circuiting is not actually needed in your example (see f2)
• Short-circuiting works but can be unwieldy with more complex data structures (see f3)
• Allowing autovivification then removing it results in cleaner, and easier to maintain, code (see f4)
  • This option has potential drawbacks. Consider the case where $h->{b}{c}{q} existed and had a meaningful and required value but is removed by 'delete $h->{b}{c}'.
  • On second thoughts: this is probably a very bad idea (even though it does work in this specific test script).

I think each has its merits and probably comes down to best choice on a case by case basis.

---

---

Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!

Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.

Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.

Please read these before you post! —

• How do I compose an effective node title?
• How do I post a question effectively?
• Markup in the Monastery

Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:

a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr

You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)

	For:		Use:
	&		&
	<		&lt;
	>		&gt;
	[		&#91;
	]		&#93;

Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?

See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.