My point was to illustrate how the "naive" expectation of dereferencing is contradicted by the reality of how autovivification works.
Ok, that is a perfectly reasonable explanation. It might have been nice to say that in the original post, but I know how hard it can be to figure out the things people will have questions or confusion about.
I have lately been incorporating Test::More into my perlmonks posts
I like this idea. One of the reasons I like tests is they can convey a lot of information in a convenient, machine-usable little packet. They are just like the test snippets I usually end up writing, but in addition they show where my expectations are violated or upheld.
In reply to Re^3: Autovivification for dummies (using Test::More)
by revdiablo
in thread Autovivification for dummies (using Test::More)
by tphyahoo
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |