my @a;
while (<INFILE>) {
  my ($fn, $ln, $age) = split("\t", $_);
  # now convert this array to a hash and stuff it in the array
  push(@a, {'fn'=>$fn, 'ln'=>$ln, 'age'=>$age});
}
[download]

DBI returns a nicely prepared array of hashes with fetchall_arrayref({}) and I was trying to "emulate" that while using text files. But, "if I could", I would probably find other uses as well.

Does the CSV have a header line which describes the columns? I often do this

chomp($headerline = <INFILE>);
my @header = split(/\t/,$headerline);
[download]

(although you could just define one relative to the code

my @header = qw(fn ln age);
[download]

Now when reading in the file

while( <INFILE>) {
  chomp;
  my $c = 0;
  my @columns = split(/\t/,$_);
  push @a, { map { $header[$c++] => $_ } @columns };
}
[download]

That's what I would have suggested, with one change: use a hash slice.

# instead of this
my $c = 0;
my @columns = split(/\t/,$_);
push @a, { map { $header[$c++] => $_ } @columns };

# do this
my %row;
@row{@header} = split(/\t/,$_);
push @a, \%row;
[download]

They're functionally equivalent, I know... but it's just that since what you are doing is really a hash-slice, why not use hash-slice syntax?

------------
:Wq
Not an editor command: Wq

I really don't see why you shouldn't do it the way you have it coded here. And since you probably already know what the fields are, you can even skip the hash altogether. An array of arrays looks good to me.

my @a;
while (<INFILE>) {
  my @line = split /\t/;
  push @a, \@line; # Array of array references
}
[download]

Or even:

my @a;
push @a, ( split /\t/ ) while (<INFILE>); # array of arrays
[download]

which provides a nice list context to put your input directly into an array. :)

--
Allolex

>And since you probably already know what the fields are,
>you can even skip the hash altogether. An array of arrays
>looks good to me

unfortunately, I need an array of hashes ;-). The best use is to just stick a ref to that array inside a tmpl_loop in HTML::Template. Besides, an aOfH is more intuitive for me. That said...

>I really don't see why you shouldn't do it the way you have it
>coded here.

because, one, I might not know what the variable names are (they may be variables... as alluded to below), and two, it just gets tiring typing out a hash structure especially if a lot of fields are involved. Tom's suggestion below works well for such a problem.

Thanks though for you help.