In reverse order, sorry about the typo, typically I'm using $_ as a complex array of arrays and get a little sloppy in my notation (hmmm, note to self-- sloppy in this context usually means 'possibly bug-ridden', needs checking). As far as tadman's approach goes, I've no objection other than the additional typing, which come to think of it might actually be a little clearer in terms of what I'm doing-- i.e. self documenting. Sorry you were irked-- I thought a routine that deals with call refs might as well be called that! I like your economy of style though even if you are not happy with the proposed solution.
--hsm
"Never try to teach a pig to sing...it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."In reply to Re: Re: use strict;,$main::, and AUTOLOAD: Why can't we all get along?
by hsmyers
in thread use strict;,$main::, and AUTOLOAD: Why can't we all get along?
by hsmyers
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |