Ooops.. Yeah.. I further narrowed down the code by removing the STORE method as it's not used in this particular scenario.. so the line number was wrong.. However, I believe the syntax %h->{a} is (from what I can make of it) equivelent to $h{a}.. IMO, It's just syntactically clearer.
The results are still the same.. $h{a} vs. %h->{a}
I realize now that I left out some detail.. Doh.. This hash will be tied to rows in a single table.. where the key is a set rows, and the value is a hashref of the key/value pairs. EG: the table structure looks like:
class varchar,
key varchar,
value varchar
Thus, $h{class}->{key}='value'
The tied hash is readonly.. there's another mechanism to update them permenantly.. this object will only be able to change them temporarily via command line arguments.
Hope that helps explain my intentions. Thanks for the response
SMF 8)
In reply to Re: Re: Problem with tie (hash) and dbi?
by smferris
in thread Problem with tie (hash) and dbi?
by smferris
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |