Re^2: new keyword "size" to avoid scalar trap ? ( scalar @array != scalar(LIST) )

[LanX]

in reply to Re: new keyword "size" to avoid scalar trap ? ( scalar @array != scalar(LIST) )
in thread new keyword "size" to avoid scalar trap ? ( scalar @array != scalar(LIST) )

> I don't see a need for it.

Honestly, did you immediately spot the problem in BUK's code?

Re: Idiom to return 0 or random number of array elements

UPDATE:

Do you really prefer explaining goatse "op"  =()= and turtle "op" @{[ ]} to newbes who simply need to count the elements a function returns?

UPDATE:

> I'd rather see them overload length to accept a hash, array or reference to a hash or array.

Then it's quite impossible to tell what length ($str) is supposed to return. 1 for the list-size or the char-size of $str?

[roboticus]

LanX:

No, I didn't notice the error. And I've never used goatse, turtle or kite. Perhaps if I had, I'd see the need for it.

As far as the practicality of what length $str is supposed to return, I didn't give it much thought. I was just expressing my color preference for new new shed out back. ;^)

...roboticus

When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like your thumb.