Re^5: Using variables in array names

Howdy!

OK. But that doesn't make the solution invalid. It more likely suggests that the people getting into trouble from using symbolic references are both inexperienced and ignorant.

The basic fact remains that hashes are the Right Tool for managing a collection of items identified by an arbitrary string. Your initial response conveyed the impression that you would deprecate using hashes with variable keys entirely, which, IMO, is absurd.

yours,
Michael

Comment on Re^5: Using variables in array names

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Using variables in array names by Anonymous Monk on Aug 05, 2005 at 14:19 UTC
But that doesn't make the solution invalid. No, and I never claimed it was invalid. I just objected to the phrasing that "you will be fine" - as it suggests you're suddenly immune from the perils of symbolic references. That's what I objected to.	[reply]
Re^7: Using variables in array names by blazar (Canon) on Aug 05, 2005 at 14:45 UTC
Well, if you don't use symbolic references then you're immune from the perils of symbolic references... your point, I think, was that using a complex structure, e.g. a HoA is not much advantageous over symrefs. Indeed the risk in connection with typos is exactly the same, but with what isn't it? And the problem with symrefs is that you're still manipulating package variable, whereas a hash can be a lexical one which often is better suited for whatever use one has in mind...	[reply]
Re^7: Using variables in array names by herveus (Prior) on Aug 05, 2005 at 14:26 UTC
Howdy! Your words conveyed a different impression. ...and I disagree with your statement... If you use a real hash (lexical, please) instead of symbolic references, you are immune to the perils of symbolic references. The problem of mistyping individual hash keys is a separate problem that afflicts both approaches. The big peril of symbolic references is that you have to take additional care to avoid stomping on the package variable names you create ad hoc. Your objection conflates these to facets. yours, Michael	[reply]