And since when was "indicate" an absolute? "It's a possibility" could easily be rewritten as "likely indicates". I also do not think you would be wrong to expect it. "Expect" is not an absolute either. If 89% of the time that's how it plays out then why not expect it? It's like when CPU's predict the next set of instructions and cache those. Sometimes their expectations are not met, but often they are and we get a nice performance boost out of it. Or like when the boss expects good work from a long time employee with a history of producing good work. Heck, if a Lead is assigned to work on a project, that's a good indicator that it's either important or difficult (or both). We use expectations in our lives all of the time. I expect the bridge over the Missouri River here to hold up when I cross it. Update: Just like being 20+ levels deep is a good indicator this is waste of time! ;)

Saying something occurred when it didn't just so you can shoot it down is the very definition of a straw man. I never answered that to that question.

He was asking about it in the context of %hash=(); or %hash={}

Yes, to which I said that {} does the wrong thing.

I also pointed out that parens have nothing to do with hash initialisation, since he specifically asked about parens. Saying so is not out of context.

And since when was "indicate" an absolute? "It's a possibility"

That's not true. Indications aren't always correct, but "indicates a list" doesn't mean "indicates the possibility of a list". indicate

Parens don't provide any information whatsoever about what's in the parens, not even information about the probability of what's in the parens. As such, parens don't point out the presence of a list or even the possibility of presence of a list. You'd have exactly the same information if the parens weren't there.

In this context, «my %hash =» indicates a list. The «(» doesn't add any additional information whatsoever. Again, parens are not part of the answer at all. That's why I didn't mention them in context.

If 89% of the time that's how it plays out then why not expect it?

First, your number is completely made up.

Secondly, you've just argued «"people surviving a jump off some building 89% of the time" indicates "people will survive a jump off that building"».

Just like being 20+ levels deep is a good indicator this is waste of time! ;)

I don't think helping people get the answers they want is a waste of time, but I don't know how I can do so here. Sorry I couldn't clear up your confusion.

Parens don't indicate lists (as told by the three participants and which I showed by rebutting all your justifications).

Parens have nothing to do with hash initialisation (despite your claims that saying so is out of context).

Secondly, you've just argued «"people surviving a jump off some building 89% of the time" indicates "people will survive a jump off that building"».

Always black and white with you. «"people surviving a jump off some building 89% of the time" indicates "people will likely survive a jump off that building"»

I understand what you are saying, I just don't think it applies to how I was answering the question or how "useful" your answer was. Maybe the problem is you are treating everything said in terms of perl (i.e. the interpreter) when I am not. Or you are just being too black and white.

Yes, 89% was made up. I was not claiming it was valid, I was just using a high number to show that expecting certain results can be reasonable based on the probabilities.

Check out the Meriam-Webster entry for indicate.

Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks