Re^2: Array/List Strangeness

The idiom is somewhat useful: my @a= (@b)[0..99]; would create a new array of max size 100, but won't make the new array larger if @b has fewer than 100 elements. And since there is probably code out there using this I don't think this inconsistency can be changed

I don't know what you mean, can't see any general difference between slicing @b or (@b), except when $#b==0!

  DB<38> @b=1..3
  
  DB<39> x @b[0..6]
0  1
1  2
2  3
3  undef
4  undef
5  undef
6  undef
  DB<40> x (@b)[0..6]
0  1
1  2
2  3
3  undef
4  undef
5  undef
6  undef
[download]

now 0-element array!

  DB<43> @b=()
 
  DB<44> x @b[0..6]
0  undef
1  undef
2  undef
3  undef
4  undef
5  undef
6  undef
  DB<45> x (@b)[0..6]
  empty array
[download]

Cheers Rolf

Comment on Re^2: Array/List Strangeness Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Array/List Strangeness by jethro (Monsignor) on Aug 05, 2009 at 20:26 UTC
Look at the time the node was posted, it was when I still had hope ;-) and no indication of further inconsistent behaviour	[reply]
Re^3: Array/List Strangeness (out-of-bounds) by tye (Sage) on Aug 05, 2009 at 18:48 UTC
You have to make all of the elements referenced out-of-bounds. Compare `@b[@b,1+@b]` vs `(@b)[@b,1+@b]` (whether @b is empty or not). - tye	[reply] [d/l] [select]