Hello, On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 07:20:45 -0700 "Wiggins d Anconia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But lets not go there first. What is with all of the copying in and > out of hashes? What is the point? Generally you shouldn't need to do > this type of thing, it usually indicates a problem elsewhere. A hash > is usually a more useful data structure so pulling single values out > and munging a bunch of scalar variables *usually* isn't the way you > want to go about it.... so what are you really doing? Why don't you > want to work with the values while they are in the %dbm_hash? I know, I am going to switch over into that direction. I justed wanted to make sure the program works at all, while being able to test if the DBM is read correctly... Thus I had local variable filled with default values (so they wouldn't overwrite the values in the DBM-hash) and then override them with the values in the DBM-hash, if there were any. This way, if there was no value given in the DBM-hash for a certain setting, the program would not end up with invalid or empty values. Since it works now, I can get rid of the local variables. But still, I need two hashes, one for the default values, one for the overrides. The program allows you to change settings at run-time as well as change values in the dbm-hash - I don't want local-settings to go into the dbm-hash unless I explicitly choose to. Thanks, kind regards, Benjamin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
