Long ago and far away, the main thread began with a question about passing named parameters as hash key/value pairs: the key is the name and the value is the parameter.
Subsequently, in Re^3: Preferred technique for named subroutine parameters? and in the context, I thought, of the question of the main thread, akho wrote "Try using a reference as a hash key ... ".
I think this statement is the root of my confusion, because I would paraphrase it as "Try using a reference as the name of a named parameter", and I could not (and still cannot) understand why one would want to do this.
Further along in Re^3: Preferred technique for named subroutine parameters? and in sub-threads stemming therefrom, and in Re^5: Preferred technique for named subroutine parameters? in particular, there is discussion, as I understand it, of just what happens to a reference when it gets stringified as a hash key and of how to avoid the ill-effects of this process. But I still cannot answer what, to me, seems the Basic Question: Why would one want to use a reference as the name of a named parameter in the first place?
Until I can either answer the BQ or clear up any confusion I may have about akho's original statement, I fear I am doomed to endless, hopeless wandering...
In reply to Re^10: Preferred technique for named subroutine parameters?
by AnomalousMonk
in thread Preferred technique for named subroutine parameters?
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |