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

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"»

Exactly my point. (I guess you're just as black and white.) Or are you falsly claiming you said "parenthesizes are likely to indicate lists"?

Check out the Meriam-Webster entry for indicate.

I already checked the dictionary. Since you didn't take your own advice, I'll copy it here:

• Parens don't point out lists.
• Parens don't point to lists.
• Parens aren't a sign of lists.
• Parens aren't a symptom of lists.
• Parens aren't an index of lists.
• Parens don't demonstrate the necessity of lists.
• Parens don't demonstrate the advisability of lists.
• Parens don't suggest the necessity of lists.
• Parens don't suggest the advisability of lists.
• Parens don't state lists.
• Parens don't express lists briefly.