Since @x isn't a scalar, it shouldn't affect the count of $n2 because I have scalar = list = list = list
No, you don't. You have scalar = array = list = list, which, as far as the scalar is concerned, reduces to scalar = array, after the array is assigned its value. An array is not a list. The Camel is quite clear on that point. It's also clear on what an array returns in scalar context. No surprises there.
In reply to Re^5: List assignment in scalar context
by jonadab
in thread List assignment in scalar context
by Grimnebulin
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |