Here's a way to think of it that helped me (though it's a little indirect, this is how I latched onto the difference): the => operator you see in hash construction is really just a comma that says "quote barewords to the left of me." So it's a pretty subtle difference between:
andmy %hash = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6);
my %hash = (1=>2, 3=>4, 5=>6);
Both do the same thing; the only difference comes out if you want to have strings as the keys, using the => makes things look nicer, and lets the key/value relationship stand out visually =)
my %quotes_hash = ("bob","carol", "ted","alice"); # vs. my %noquotes_hash = (bob=>"carol", ted=>"alice");
In a lot of respects, hashes are just lists, at least as far as their construction is concerned ... of course the internals are different =)
Philosophy can be made out of anything. Or less -- Jerry A. Fodor
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Hashes and Refs
by arturo
in thread Hashes and Refs
by Chady
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |