Taking a reference to a slice yields a reference to each member (it's \ operating on a list). Generating one ref requires the same number of chars as Larry's, and is substantially slower. But if you ever need to generate a substantial list of scalar refs (it catches up at around 20, compared to using map with Larry's), this would be the way to go.\@{[]}[0..49]
And with all due respect to Larry, here's a golfier way to get a single scalar ref:
Now, for the case you mention, in which you merely need a stateless object...well, you don't need an object. You just do everything through class methods. But taking a reference to a constant would work. You don't need an anonymous scalar, because you're not going to modify the contents.\[]->[0]
You'd want a scalar when you have an object with only one property. In that case, you'd just declare a lexical scalar in your constructor, and bless a reference to it. So you still don't need anonymous scalars.
In reply to Re: On References to the Unnamed
by Roy Johnson
in thread On References to the Unnamed
by tlm
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |