On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 05:09:26AM -0400, Shawn H Corey wrote:
> Roman Makurin wrote:
> >Hi All!
> >
> >right now im doing it in following way:
> >$size = @{[func_that_return_list_value]};
> >
> >is there any best way to do it ?
> >
> See `perldoc -f scalar` http://perldoc.perl.org/functions/scalar.html
I read the perldoc on scaler and then tried every combination
I could think of:
perl -le ' sub farr{ return qw( k l m ); }
$a = @{[farr]};
$b = scalar farr;
$c = scalar (farr);
$d = scalar [farr];
$e = scalar @{farr};
$f = scalar @{[farr]};
$g = () = farr;
print "\n\$a = $a, \$b = $b, \$c = $c, \$d = $d, \$e = $e, \$f = $f, \$g = $g";'
$a = 3, $b = m, $c = m, $d = ARRAY(0x814f8e4), $e = 0, $f = 3, $g = 3
Unless there is a syntax I've missed, only a, f & g give the desired answer.
To my thinking a is clearly preferable to f but the winner has to be g.
=()= is much more legible than @{[]}, less prone to mistyping.
Thank you Paul Johnson for bringing this to my attention.
The original question was what's 'best'.
Does anyone know of a case where one of these expressions would fail?
TIA,
Mike
--
Satisfied user of Linux since 1997.
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org
For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org
http://learn.perl.org/
