Well, this works under use strict. I create a named array containing a named hash of anonymous hashes of anonymous arrays of anonymous and named subroutine references. I think I got everything you said :-)

#!/usr/bin/perl

use strict;
use Data::Dumper;
local $\ = "\n";

my %namedHash = (
    'anon hash1' => {
        'anon array1' => [
            sub { print 'anon sub1'},
            \&test1,
            \&test2
        ],
        'anon array2' => [
            sub { print 'anon sub2';},
            \&test1,
            \&test3
        ],
    },
    'anon hash2' => {
        'anon array1' => [
            sub { print 'anon sub1'},
            \&test1,
            \&test2
        ],
        'anon array2' => [
            sub { print 'anon sub2'},
            \&test1,
            \&test3
        ],
    },
);

my @namedArray = ( \%namedHash );

print Dumper(\@namedArray);
exit;

sub test1 {
    print 'sub test1';
};

sub test2 {
    print 'sub test2';
};

sub test3 {
    print 'sub test3';
};
[download]

If you insist on seeing how low you can get a post rated you should have insulted merlyn, complained that vroom cant build a useful website to save his life, mentioned how python and php make it a lot easier, and maybe even offer to re-write CGI to make it more efficient.

Heck, threaten a few people's lives while you are at it. Ask if Larry is an atheist. Bemoan the fact that no one ever helps you here. Sell babies. Change your login to princepawn2 (j/k prince =).

Hey I know, offer to help people here learn Java! I mean really half the time you can't do it any other way (as far as i know).

merlyn all the time yelling Homework, can I be the one to yell troll? =)

--
$you = new YOU;
honk() if $you->love(perl)

i in no way meant to insult anyone.

If you want no explanation for what i said, stop reading.

When i was talking about use strict not working well under the situations, i was designing a natural language processor that took user input strings and, well, processed them. The system was a learning system, which meant it had to be able to rewrite its own code as well. NO other language but perl can do anything like this that i've seen. (i don't count lisp because it has other problems)

The setup i was going for used nouns, verbs, and modifiers. A noun and verb are easy to set up and use. The modifiers were a royal pain. They could modify things in every which way and they had to stay organized and play nice. When i was taking a generic user string, and putting it through all these inane processes to find out what that string 'meant', i looked and looked for better ways to do things. Given the complexity of the modifiers, there seemed that other solutions had other problems with them. The set of problems inherent in the design i chose were the problems. The problem had nothing to do with perl being able to or not being able to do something. So to stop this long story, i got out of some of the problems i had by not using strict and using loopholes that strict would have caught, then patched up the loopholes as best as i could.

It's not a good solution, i know this. i'm sorry i ever said what i did, but i can't take it back (time is only one way unfortunately).
As for your other suggestions on my getting a low rating, merlyn is a saint, insulting him just doesn't work. He does perl better in every way, every day more than i could do in my whole life.
vroom has made an excellent web site. It's a shrine for me.
i'm not going to even go into the headaches of suggesting another language other than perl. Java blows goats. There is no web language better than perl, only a fool would say otherwise, only an idiot would believe otherwise. i'll admit i'm stupid, but i'm no fool or idiot
You don't have to worry about lives being threatened, i'm suicidal, not homicidal. And as for no one helping me here. This is a learning experience: what not to say on perlmonks . i have failed with flying colors (yet again). My best bet is to let this be my last post. Maybe than i can test the limits of low posts with this one that offends so much.

So, yet again, i'm sorry. Maybe i should explain more, but most likely i should just talk less (and anyone who read through all this garbage can agree with that =)
jynx


PS Please tell me if yet again i said the wrong thing. Until i learn how to speak in a monk-friendly way i'll probably annoy a lot of people on accident. i wish i didn't. i can't help being who i am, and i can only change when i've learned what to change into. And yes, ghost is an option.

Gah, I left out the smilies and just kiddings for ya. I didn't mean to be mean to you, but if you dig around the site a bit you'll find that use strict is the number one pet peeve on here. People who come ask for help and haven't asked perl itself to help em first get short shrift here.

Your post, in context, isn't that bad but it sure tripped my sarcasm handler (SIGJERK for the unix types). It just set me off.

OTOH, what you are working on sounds really cool. I've pondered such a thing myself. I can also understand whopping use strict so you can play fast and loose, but I gotta frown on you making it a habit. =)

Please don't apologize to me tho, I owe you one. Also Java blows goats has nice ring to it... I laughed out loud...

Remember, without coredumps, they would have called it segblame... I dumped core without sufficient reason, so if you insulted, it's my segfault.

P.S. sorry for the puns, been a weird week...

P.P.S. btw, I actually voted you up on the second post... I never voted on the first...

--
$you = new YOU;
honk() if $you->love(perl)

<PaperBoyVoice> Babies, we've got babies! Who wants babies? Our warehouse is full of babies, who wan-- oh wait, extremely was being sarcastic... </PaperBoyVoice>

Everyone has their demons....