Saying something occurred when it didn't just so you can shoot it down is the very definition of a straw man. I never answered that to that question.
He was asking about it in the context of %hash=(); or %hash={}
Yes, to which I said that {} does the wrong thing.
I also pointed out that parens have nothing to do with hash initialisation, since he specifically asked about parens. Saying so is not out of context.
And since when was "indicate" an absolute? "It's a possibility"
That's not true. Indications aren't always correct, but "indicates a list" doesn't mean "indicates the possibility of a list". indicate
Parens don't provide any information whatsoever about what's in the parens, not even information about the probability of what's in the parens. As such, parens don't point out the presence of a list or even the possibility of presence of a list. You'd have exactly the same information if the parens weren't there.
In this context, «my %hash =» indicates a list. The «(» doesn't add any additional information whatsoever. Again, parens are not part of the answer at all. That's why I didn't mention them in context.
If 89% of the time that's how it plays out then why not expect it?
First, your number is completely made up.
Secondly, you've just argued «"people surviving a jump off some building 89% of the time" indicates "people will survive a jump off that building"».
Just like being 20+ levels deep is a good indicator this is waste of time! ;)
I don't think helping people get the answers they want is a waste of time, but I don't know how I can do so here. Sorry I couldn't clear up your confusion.
Parens don't indicate lists (as told by the three participants and which I showed by rebutting all your justifications).
Parens have nothing to do with hash initialisation (despite your claims that saying so is out of context).
In reply to Re^28: Why? (each...)
by ikegami
in thread Why? (each...)
by locked_user sundialsvc4
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |