in reply to Re^5: Strange hash array behavior
in thread Strange hash array behavior

You never get a copy of the array referenced by $data2, not even the first time through the loop.
But, it seems to work on the first iteration. util's fix solved the problem and that is the route I am going to go. This is purely academic at this point. So, my last example above (using the same data)...
my @array; foreach (0..2) { my $d = $data1->[$_]; $d->{sizes} = $data2; push(@array,$d); } print Dumper(\@array); $VAR1 = [ { 'food' => 'apple', 'shape' => 'round', 'sizes' => [ { 'small' => 'bunny', 'big' => 'cow' }, { 'small' => 'mouse', 'big' => 'horse' } ] }, { 'food' => 'pear', 'shape' => 'square', 'sizes' => $VAR1->[0]{'sizes'} }, { 'food' => 'grape', 'shape' => 'oval', 'sizes' => $VAR1->[0]{'sizes'} } ];
But using util's solution, clone solves the problem:
push(@array,clone($d));
So, why does it "work" on the first pass (without using clone) and then from there I just get a shallow copy?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Strange hash array behavior
by Util (Priest) on Jan 29, 2009 at 07:35 UTC
    So, why does it "work" on the first pass (without using clone) and then from there I just get a shallow copy?

    Short answer: it did *not* "work" on pass#1 any differently than pass#2 or pass#3. That fact is might not be evident from Data::Dumper output until one obtains mastery of Perl references (via perlreftut and perlref).

    Detailed explanation:
    If you say

    my @foo = ( 1, 2, 3 ); my $arrayref = \@foo;
    , and you wanted to explain to a fellow programmer what $arrayref pointed to, you would (of course) simply say "the array named @foo".

    If instead you had coded

    my $arrayref = [ 1, 2, 3 ];
    , then $arrayref would still point to equivalent data, but you could *not* describe it as a reference to a particular array named @something. The array is nameless, floating in memory as long as anyone has a reference to it, and vanishing once the last reference goes away. It is anonymous.

    Furthermore, if I say

    my @foo = ( 1, 2, 3 );
    , then I would be (close enough to) accurate to say that the three numbers "live" in @foo, and that the 2 is stored between the 1 and the 3. If instead I code
    my @foo = ( [1], [2], [3] );
    , I would be far less accurate to say that the three anonymous arrays "live" in @foo, or that the anonymous array containing 2 is stored between the anonymous array containing 1 and the anonymous array containing 3.

    That distinction is important. Arrays cannot hold arrays or hashes; Arrays can only contain scalars. Hash values can only contain scalars. The three anonymous arrays "live" out in space, only the *references* to them get stored (in an ordered fashion) in the @foo array.

    When Data::Dumper says "$VAR1->[0]{'sizes'}" in your second two passes, it does so because that string of code is the closest thing to a name it has to describe the anonymous hash it already described in the first pass. Data::Dumper cannot print simple repetitions of the anonymous hash from the first pass, because that would be describing 3 separate anonymous hashes, each (coincidentally) containing the same data elements, yet each floating in its own separate place in memory.

    Perhaps this simpler example will help.
    my $arrayref1 = [ 9, 10, 'a big fat hen' ]; my $arrayref2 = [ $arrayref1, $arrayref1, $arrayref1, ]; print "Only showing super-structure:\n"; print Dumper $arrayref2; print "Showing both sub-structure and super-structure:\n"; print Dumper $arrayref1, $arrayref2;
    produces this output:
    Only showing super-structure: $VAR1 = [ [ 9, 10, 'a big fat hen' ], $VAR1->[0], $VAR1->[0] ]; Showing both sub-structure and super-structure: $VAR1 = [ 9, 10, 'a big fat hen' ]; $VAR2 = [ $VAR1, $VAR1, $VAR1 ];
      When Data::Dumper says "$VAR1->[0]{'sizes'}" in your second two passes, it does so because that string of code is the closest thing to a name it has to describe the anonymous hash it already described in the first pass.
      Ok, I am getting my head around this now... thanks for taking the time to explain this in such detail. Much appreciated... Cheers!