your second example only works1 because of the second scope
What do you call the second example? The way I see it, I only posted one.
Specifically, if you tried to unroll this for loop, then you'd have to either think up a bunch of extra names, or get warned.
But why would you do that. I can't imagine any scenario where you'd do that. Can you come up with a real world example where you need to generate more than one such reference in the same scope? If there was such an case, it seems to me that having different names for different variables would be a good thing.
In reply to Re^5: anonymous scalar reference
by ikegami
in thread anonymous scalar reference
by dharanivasan
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |