On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:16:16 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
>>>>>> "PS" == Peter Scott <pe...@psdt.com> writes:
>
> PS> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:16:27 +0800, Tim Bowden wrote:
> >> I've just realised I almost never use named arrays or hashes
> >> anymore. It's almost always anonymous references instead. That
> >> lead me to wonder what criteria experienced perl hackers have as to
> >> when to use a named array or hash, and when to start with an
> >> anonymous ref instead. My very informal criteria tends to be to
> >> use an anonymous ref from the start if I'm going to be passing it
> >> to a sub, and a named array or hash otherwise. I've found the
> >> former to be much more common. Thoughts?
>
> PS> I create arrays and hashes by default, not references to anonymous
> PS> versions. I'd sooner not be putting arrows in unnecessarily. I
> can PS> always enreference an aggregate in the call to a sub.
>
> my choice is usually based on usage. if i am building up data
> structures, the members are almost always anon refs - no need to have
> named vars for them.
Right. I should have said that I don't create named references, most of
the time, but anon references as part of a data structure, sure. In
other words, I very rarely do
my $some_ref = \anything or [anything] or {anything}
as in the original post.
--
Peter Scott
http://www.perlmedic.com/ http://www.perldebugged.com/
http://www.informit.com/store/product.aspx?isbn=0137001274
http://www.oreillyschool.com/courses/perl1/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org
For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org
http://learn.perl.org/
