in reply to Re^5: mystery function & Odd number of elements in anonymous hash
in thread mystery function & Odd number of elements in anonymous hash

I am not too certain about your "wrapper" function.

I'm happy with it. The vast majority of cases return zero or one results. Multiple results are rare, and I know when to expect them and handle them separately. I can always call the original function when such things are needed.

I still think that it makes sense for the fat comma to effect scalar context, though.

  • Comment on Re^6: mystery function & Odd number of elements in anonymous hash

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: mystery function & Odd number of elements in anonymous hash
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Jul 18, 2011 at 21:30 UTC
    I still think that it makes sense for the fat comma to effect scalar context, though.

    It wouldn't be a comma operator if it did. The comma operator builds lists.