The idiom is somewhat useful: my @a= (@b)[0..99]; would create a new array of max size 100, but won't make the new array larger if @b has fewer than 100 elements. And since there is probably code out there using this I don't think this inconsistency can be changed
I don't know what you mean, can't see any general difference between slicing @b or (@b), except when $#b==0!
DB<38> @b=1..3 DB<39> x @b[0..6] 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 undef 4 undef 5 undef 6 undef DB<40> x (@b)[0..6] 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 undef 4 undef 5 undef 6 undef
now 0-element array!
DB<43> @b=() DB<44> x @b[0..6] 0 undef 1 undef 2 undef 3 undef 4 undef 5 undef 6 undef DB<45> x (@b)[0..6] empty array
Cheers Rolf
In reply to Re^2: Array/List Strangeness
by LanX
in thread Array/List Strangeness
by Manchego
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |