>>>p.s. Has anybody already suggested that we ought to have a nicer
>>>solution to execute perl code inside a string, replacing "${\(...)}" and
>>>"@{[...]}", which also won't ever win a beauty contest? Oops, wrong
>>>mailing list.
>>
>>The first one doesn't work, and never did. You want
>>@{[....]} and @{[scalar ....]} instead.
>"Doesn't work"?
> print "The sum of 1 + 2 is ${\(1+2)}.\n";
>-->
> The sum of 1 + 2 is 3.
>I'm surprised your wouldn't have known this. The principle is the same:
>"${...}" expects a scalar reference inside the block, and '\' provides
>one. Of course, there shouldn't be a real multi-element list inside the
>parens, but just one scalar. And often, the parens aren't needed.
I'm surprised that you still don't understand. Notice what I showed
you for the replacement above: @{[scalar ....]}.
Using ${\(...)} doesn't work in the sense that contrary to popular
belief, it fails to provide a scalar context to the contents of
those parens. Thus ${ \( fn() ) } is still calling fn() in list
context, not scalar context. Witness:
sub fn { sprintf "called in %s context", wantarray ? "list" : "scalar" }
print "Test 1: ";
print "@{ [fn()] }\n";
print "Test 2: ";
print "${ \(fn()) }\n";
print "Test 3: ";
print "@{ [scalar fn()] }\n";
That, when executed, yields:
Test 1: called in list context
Test 2: called in list context
Test 3: called in scalar context
*That's* why test 2 "doesn't work".
--tom
