Re: RFC 204 (v2) Arrays: Use list reference for multidimensional array access

> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:58:10 +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
> =

> >Bart Lateur wrote:
> >> Hmm... the problem is, I think, that array references and ordinary
> >> scalars are both scalars.
> >>
> >That's true, but they're scalars with different interfaces. In particu=
lar,
> >an array ref can be dereferenced and provides an array in doing so. If=
 an
> >index can do this, then it's a multidimensional index.
> =

> That worries me. I'd like to avoid to repeat the fiasco of having the
> same code have different kinds of behavious, depending on the contents
> of a variable, as we have with symbolic references versus anonymous
> arrays/hashes.
> =

> What will this return?
> =

> 	$ary[$index]
> =

> It looks like a plain and simple array item, but what if $index is an
> array ref?

Then it returns a plain and simple array item from a multidimensional =

array.

The main problem I see are these:

@array =3D ([1,2],[3,4]);  # 2-dimensional array, using LOL syntax
print $array[[1,1]];     # prints 4, OK
print $array[1];         # prints ?????
print $array[[1,1,1]];   # prints ?????
print $array[[1]];       # prints ?????

According to RFC 204, $array[1] should return [3,4], $array[[1]] should =

return (3,4), and $array[[1,1,1]] should cause a runtime error.

Interestingly enough, my original version of RFC204 had all three of =

the "questionable" print statements be runtime errors -- I don't like =

LOL-semantics for multidimensional arrays.  Somehow, it got changed =

when being passed from me through Jerry to the RFC Librarian.  I didn't =

bother to reread it after it got posted -- I knew what it said -- so I =

didn't notice the change.

If anyone is interested, I'll post my original .pod I wrote...


> =

> =

> >> What would be the difference between
> >>
> >> $a[2]
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> $a[[2]]
> >>
> >> anyway? Aren't these just the same?
> >>
> >Nearly! From the RFC:
> >
> ><quote>
> >When a listref is used to index a list of lists, the returned list ref=
erence
> >is automatically dereferenced:
> >
> >  my @array( [0,1], [1,2]);
> >  my @a =3D @array[[0]]; # Returns (0,1), _not_ [0,1]
> ></quote>

That's part of what I didn't write in "my" RFC.

I especially don't like the line

    $array[[1,2]] =3D (1,2,3,4); # Sets the line at (1,2) to (1,2,3,4)

Huh?  That's a scalar on the right, a list on the left?  Should that =

set $array[[1,2]] to 4?

That'll teach me to proofread what "I" say....

> =

> Puh. I'd prefer
> =

> 	my @a =3D @$array[0];
> =

> which is shorter anyway.   ;-)  Currently, this does the wrong thing,
> and I think that maybe the prefix precedence should be fixed so that
> =

> 	@$ary[0]
> =

> is the same as
> =

> 	@{$ary[0]}
> =

> Or doe people find it intuitive that this returns a slice of an array
> pointed to by $ary?

I'd find =


	my @a =3D @array[0;]; =


to be nicer -- no references visible, unambiguous, same number of =

characters as @$array[0], and symmetrical with

	my @b =3D @array[;0];

for a different dimension.  It isn't easy to do that with LOL notation.

 =

> You are right in that. You cannot get a hash slice of a Perl4 style
> "multidimensional" hash. A major stumbling block.

A fatal one, in my opinion.

> =

> -- =

> 	Bart.

-- =

     Buddha Buck                             [email protected]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects."  -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice