On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 12:59:53PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote: > On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 04:28:08PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Aliasing again. They keys are copies, the values aliases. > > How bizarre? Why does it work that way? keys HASH returns copies of the keys, while values HASH returns aliases the values (new in 5.7). I don't know why, perhaps so you could modify them easily: for (values %hash) {s/foo/bar/} just like you can do for arrays. Abigail
- RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! root
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! abigail
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! abigail
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Casey R. Tweten
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! John Porter
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! abigail
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Michael G Schwern
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC195: Do not remove 'chop' PLEASE! Bart Lateur