Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2019
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 6:36 PM Dan Book <grinnz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes. Full stop. Tons of code relies on autovivification.
>
> -Dan
>
Of course tons of code relies on autovivification. It's an awesome feature
and I certainly wasn't suggesting taking it away. That would be a terrible
idea.
I was suggesting avoiding *unnecessary* autovivification, nothing more.
For example, if you have "if ($x->{$a}{$b}{$c}{$d}) {...}" and $x->{$a}{$b}
does not exist, I'm suggesting NOT autovivifying $x->{$a}{$b} and
$x->{$a}{$b}{$c} in the process of checking whether $x->{$a}{$b}{$c}{$d} is
true or false -- which is what happens by default now. Under what
circumstances would that be helpful?
On the other hand, if you store a value, that is *necessary*
autovivification that should absolutely happen. For example,
"$x->{$a}{$b}{$c}{$d}++" should definitely autovivify $x->{$a}{$b} and
$x->{$a}{$b}{$c}, because that's the only way to store a value in
$x->{$a}{$b}{$c}{$d}. It's the "read-only" style of access I'm talking
about possibly changing, not the normal, required autovivification that
everyone relies on all the time.
Deven
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next