Re: dereferencing
- From: aaron@xxxxxxxxxx (Aaron Priven)
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:21:30 -0700
On Oct 29, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Tom Phoenix wrote:
I don't think that what the original poster
wants is even possible, but I can't see any reason to need it, either.
It's probably not necessary per se, as you can always do anything using reference syntax, but it's awkward and requires lots of extra dereferencing by the interpreter.
If %hash has a few thousand entries,
routine (%hash);
sub routine {
my %myhash = @_;
....
}
is wasteful and timeconsuming, and I don't want to have to type lots of extra arrows just because I passed the hash to a subroutine. And now I don't have to. Yay.
--
Aaron Priven, aaron@xxxxxxxxxx, http://www.priven.com/aaron
.
- References:
- dereferencing
- From: Aaron Priven
- Re: dereferencing
- From: Jeremy Kister
- Re: dereferencing
- From: Tom Phoenix
- dereferencing
- Prev by Date: Re: dereferencing
- Next by Date: how to get source of of web page which is hosted on the server (which I dont have access).
- Previous by thread: Re: dereferencing
- Next by thread: Re: dereferencing
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|