>>>>> "SC" == Stuart Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SC> The think I don't like about `foo( *$bar )` is that it's not clear
SC> whether you're splatting a pair, or a hash, or an array, or a complete
SC> argument-list object. This is probably fine for quick-'n'-dirty code,
SC> but I'd like to encourage a more explicit style:
but perl will know the type of the value in $bar and expand/splat it
accordingly.
SC> my $pair = a=>'b';
SC> foo( *%$pair ); # view the pair as a 1-elem hash, and splat that
the % there isn't a hash. perl can see the single pair and deal with
that. the way to make this more readable is to use better variable
names. $pair here is fine and *$pair would mean to splat it into the
named arguments.
SC> my $href = \%hash; # or just %hash
SC> foo( *%$href ); # view the hashref as a hash, and splat that
same as above. perl sees the href and will just DWIM.
SC> sub returns_a_hash { ... }
SC> foo( *%{returns_a_hash} ); # call the sub, view the result as a
SC> hash, and splat that
isn't that what hash() is for? what is returns_a_hash really returning,
a list or a hash ref because you can't return a hash (or can you this
week? :).
SC> my $aref = [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # or just @array
SC> foo( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ); # view the arrayref as an array, and splat
that
again, autoderef would work fine here. i don't see the benefit of the
extra @.
SC> sub returns_an_array { ... }
SC> foo( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ); # call the sub, view the result as a
SC> hash, and splat that
where is the hash? wouldn't you want %{} in your system? and %{} derefs
a hash and doesn't convert a list to a hash. that is what hash() does.
uri
--
Uri Guttman ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- http://www.stemsystems.com
--Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding-
Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org
