Re^9: Perl list items

To clarify @$c[0] means the same as @{$c}[0] meaning dereference $c, take array slice

Well... I'm not sure it's that much more clear. After all, "I know what I mean, ..."

I'm still puzzled by the absence of a "... better written as ..." warning. Maybe the usage is just too far off the beaten track for warnings to stumble over.

>perl -wMstrict -le
"my @c = ('foo');
 print @c[0];
 ;;
 my $c = ['bar'];
 print @{$c}[0];
 print @ $c [0];
"
Scalar value @c[0] better written as $c[0] at -e line 1.
foo
bar
bar
[download]

Comment on Re^9: Perl list items Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^10: Perl list items by Anonymous Monk on Jul 10, 2012 at 09:24 UTC
I'm still puzzled by the absence of a "... better written as ..." warning. Because the code is different :) Because @warnme... is different from @$derefNowarn... For verbosity see diagnostics, try `perl -Mdiagnostics -e " @ARGV[0] "`	[reply] [d/l]
Re^11: Perl list items by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Jul 10, 2012 at 10:36 UTC
Because the code is different :) True, the code is different, but the expressions are all equivalent: they're all 'degenerate' single-item slices. Because @warnme... is different from @$derefNowarn... I don't understand the significance of this statement. Are scalar derefs in this context (single-item slices) simply not warned about? If so, is there a rationale for this? (I could understand if this was simply beyond the scope of the `warnings` system as it now stands. After all, you can't warn about everything.) For verbosity see diagnostics... `diagnostics` are indeed more verbose, but don't throw more light, for me, on this (admittedly somewhat trivial) problem. Oh well, going to bed now...	[reply] [d/l] [select]