It seems like some people are downvoting, perhaps assuming that I didn't read the question because I'm talking about visitation, and the question talks about bulk insertion. I phrased this intentionally; they're the same thing as far as dealing with a data structure goes.
It could be you're being dinged because the information is incorrect.
The problem has nothing to do with hash traversal. What is happening is hash-to-list flattening (and back again). The keys and values are being flattened into a series of list pairs, and then additional list pairs are being tacked on the end.
In a subsequent step (the assignment to a hash), the pairs are paired up again, and the results assigned to a hash. The values of keys coming later in the list overwrite the values of keys set earlier in the list. There is no voodoo involved, it's the way list iteration works. It's not an assumption, it's the only way it could ever work. There's no sane algorithm that could replace it.
List flattening is deterministic, there's no two ways about it (literally :)
• another intruder with the mooring in the heart of the Perl
In reply to Re^2: Bulk hash population order
by grinder
in thread Bulk hash population order
by JakeIII
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |