Re: scalar in list context

You seem to believe that parens force list context. That's wrong, parens do only group and influence precedence (with the exception of the empty list).

A scalar is technically just a one element list.

There is no functional˛ difference between @list= (1) and @list=1 or between @list= (1,2,3,4);š and @list=(1,(2,3,(4)));

It's the comma operator which builds the list value (in list context).

Cheers Rolf

UPDATE: š)Parens corrected, THX chromatic! :)

Added second example.

˛) Ikegami pointed out in a /msg that different grouping force different optrees, but of course the result is here the same...

Comment on Re: scalar in list context Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: scalar in list context by chromatic (Archbishop) on Jan 26, 2010 at 23:00 UTC
There is no difference between `@list= 1,2,3,4;` and `@list=(1,(2,3,(4)));` Careful! Precedence makes a big difference between those two. You're thinking of `@array = (1, 2, 3, 4)` versus `@array = (1, (2, 3, (4)))`.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: scalar in list context by LanX (Saint) on Jan 26, 2010 at 23:19 UTC
Wow thanks a lot. Indeed, the `=` has a higher precedence than comma ... UPDATE: what I really wanted to show is that `sub list1 { 1,2,3,4 }` and `sub list2 { (1,(2,3,(4))) }` return the same result. The parens are not necessary to produce a list but are saver and often better to read... Cheers Rolf	[reply] [d/l] [select]