On Jun 6, Nikola Janceski said:
>is there a difference between:
>
>@{ $HASH{$key} } = @array;
>$HASH{$key} = \@array;
Yes. The first overwrites everything currently contained in the array
reference $HASH{$key}; the second merely creates a new array reference,
and binds it @array.
Watch:
my (@foo, $bar, $blat);
@foo = qw( this is the way );
$bar = \@foo;
@$blat = @foo;
$foo[3] = 'end';
print "@$bar\n"; # this is the end
print "@$blat\n"; # this is the way
But watch more:
# assuming the above...
my @quux = qw( where is the light );
@$bar = @quux;
print "@foo\n"; # where is the light
print "@$bar\n"; # where is the light
print "@$blat\n"; # this is the way
Because $bar was linked to @foo, when we changed the ELEMENTS of $bar (we
did not make a new reference, we merely modified the contents of the
existing one), we changed the elements of @foo.
--
Jeff "japhy" Pinyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~japhy/
RPI Acacia brother #734 http://www.perlmonks.org/ http://www.cpan.org/
** Look for "Regular Expressions in Perl" published by Manning, in 2002 **
<stu> what does y/// stand for? <tenderpuss> why, yansliterate of course.
[ I'm looking for programming work. If you like my work, let me know. ]
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
