Oh, I see, sorry.

Actually, both jdporter and I got it wrong.
You don't modify $_ like jdporter thought.
You don't modify %_ like I thought.

Wow, that piece of code is so incredibly bad! You modify some random variable based on the current contents of $_. Whether it'll work or not is random. Most of the time, it won't.

for (
   [qw(a a b c)],
   [qw(d e e f)],
) {
   print(uinq(@$_), "\n");    # Can't coerce array into hash
}
[download]

for ('a a b c', 'd e e f') {
   print(uinq(split), "\n");  # Can't use string ("a a b c") as a HASH
+ ref while "strict refs" in use
}
[download]

Adding local $_; causes the a specific variable to be used. That alieviates some of the problem, but that variable needs to be localized too. Why not just use %_?

As an expression:

do { local %_; @_{@_}=(); keys %_ }
[download]

As a sub:

sub uinq { local %_; @_{@_}=(); keys %_ }
[download]

ikekami: Wow, that piece of code is so incredibly bad! ...

Ok, ok, this is my first day on P.M. where I played around
some time longer and tried to get used to the viewing habits of
the holy men.

So I learned I can't just give a simple
example in order to state what's meant - no, one has to treat
each code block by Test::Harness several times in each context
available before posting - to avoid destructive criticism.

So be it. Thanks for introducing me to P.M.


Regards & good night (its past 22:00 in Europe ;-)

mwa

I'll give the example, then

use Test::More tests => 2;

sub uinq {
   @_ = do { @$_{@_}=(); keys %$_ };
   @_
} 

my @array = (1,1,3,3,2,3,5,7,5,2);

%$_ = ( f=>'oo', b=>'ar' );
is keys(%$_), 2;
print "@{[ uinq @array ]}\n";
is keys(%$_), 2;
[download]