Re^3: More efficient dereferencing of a subroutine return

[gg48gg]

Hey all. Related question. Is there a way to avoid this multi step operation when I have multiple return values of a sub? e.g.:

my ($ref1, $ref2) = retarrayrefs();
my @arr1=@$ref1;
my @arr2=@$ref2;

sub retarrayrefs {
 my @arr1=qw(one two three);
 my @arr2=qw(four five six seven);
 return (\@arr1,\@arr2);
}

I was trying many variations of the below, but none work properly, and it just doesn't seem like a good thing to do. Should I stop trying to shorten this code and simply stick with the above?

my (@arr1,@arr2) = ( ${retarrays()[0]}, ${retarrays()[1]} );

[BrowserUk]

Is there a way to avoid this multi step operation when I have multiple return values of a sub?

Yes:

sub fillArrays {
    my( $r1, $r2 ) = @_;
    my @$r1 = qw(one two three);
    my @$r2 = qw(four five six seven);
    return;
}

my (@arr1,@arr2);
fillArrays( \@arr1, \@arr2 );

[AnomalousMonk]

This also works and is 'shorter', although I would not say more maintainable:

>perl -wMstrict -MData::Dump -le
"sub fillArrays {
   my( $r1, $r2 ) = @_;
   @$r1 = qw(one two three);
   @$r2 = qw(four five six seven);
   }
 ;;
 fillArrays( \my (@arr1, @arr2) );
 ;;
 dd \@arr1, \@arr2;
"
(["one", "two", "three"], ["four", "five", "six", "seven"])

[gg48gg]

Thanks to all of you. I am going to stick to the "keep it simple, stupid" philosophy even though it is more lines and typing. I appreciate everyones' replies.