Re^3: How do you find keys of a Blessed Hash?

in reply to Re^2: How do you find keys of a Blessed Hash?
in thread How do you find keys of a Blessed Hash?

Instead of running off, again, on a wild goose chase, it maybe would be simpler to just read keys, the official documentation? It mentions there that:

Starting with Perl 5.14, keys can take a scalar EXPR, which must contain a reference to an unblessed hash or array. The argument will be dereferenced automatically. This aspect of keys is considered highly experimental. The exact behaviour may change in a future version of Perl.

... and without seeing your code, my guess is that you are "using" that experimental feature, knowingly or not.

Comment on Re^3: How do you find keys of a Blessed Hash?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: How do you find keys of a Blessed Hash? by james2vegas (Chaplain) on Oct 08, 2012 at 04:26 UTC
It's sad that these new features we're getting never work as well as intended (given's lexical $_, the mess of smartmatch, auto-dereferencing with keys and others, treating arrays like hashes).	[reply]
Re^5: How do you find keys of a Blessed Hash? by tobyink (Canon) on Oct 08, 2012 at 13:06 UTC
`keys $blessed` doesn't work for a very good reason. `keys` can (in recent versions of Perl) be used with either arrays or hashes. A blessed object can (thanks to overload) be simultaneously dereferencable as a hash and and array. So for blessed objects, you need to manually dereference. `perl -E'sub Monkey::do{say$_,for@_,do{($monkey=[caller(0)]->[3])=~s{::}{ }and$monkey}}"Monkey say"->Monkey::do'`	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: How do you find keys of a Blessed Hash? by moritz (Cardinal) on Oct 08, 2012 at 05:44 UTC
To the best of my knowledge, `//`, say and state work as designed, and the design is sound. (The first two are my favorite features from 5.010). Also it makes you appreciate how hard programming language design is. Perl 6 - the future is here, just unevenly distributed	[reply] [d/l]
Re^6: How do you find keys of a Blessed Hash? by james2vegas (Chaplain) on Oct 08, 2012 at 07:16 UTC
Sure, those work fine, but aren't really new work, just syntactic sugar over `$x = defined($x) ? $x : $value`, a `local $\ = "\n"` (and print), and a function closed over a variable declared in an outer lexical scope (this is actually superior to the sugar, since you can have multiple functions sharing the same variable).	[reply] [d/l] [select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom