Scott R. Godin wrote:
> Robert Citek wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2005, at 5:19 PM, Wiggins d'Anconia wrote:
>>
>>> Close. You want a hash slice.
>>>
>>> @[EMAIL PROTECTED] = @vals;
>>>
>>> A marvelously Perlish construct.
>>>
>>> http://danconia.org
>>
>>
>>
>> Sweeeeet! Thanks a bunch.
>>
>> Do you have a good reference which explains this? I've looked in
>> both the Camel and Llama books, but didn't see the @$ construct
>> anywhere.
>>
>
> basically it's shorthand for the more obvious and well documented
> @{$reference} notation.
>
> great detail on this can be found in the perldocs: perlreftut perlref
> perldsc and perllol
>
> Personally I feel the shorthand way makes it slightly more difficult WRT
> maintenance. Fine for one-offs but for long term multiline code, the
> long form would likely be preferable as it makes it easier to see just
> exactly what's going on there.
>
I recognize that you said "Personally I feel..." so there is certainly
nothing wrong. I will counter that the additional {} just add clutter
where it isn't needed. Another example is parentheses around function
arguments that don't require them. I am not a key stroke counter, but
adding the grouping where it isn't necessary *can* (not "does" for
everyone) make it much more difficult to read because you have to
constantly see where you are matched to.
Just my $.02 on style...
http://danconia.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
