Hash Autovivification Weirdness

Ido has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Here are a few code examples that work as expected:

$hash{'a'};
print exists $hash{'a'}?'yes':'no';
#no
[download]

$hash{'a'}=1;
print exists $hash{'a'}?'yes':'no';
#yes
[download]

$hash{'a'}=$hash{'a'};
print exists $hash{'a'}?'yes':'no';
#yes
[download]

sub foo{$_[0]}
foo($hash{'a'});
print exists $hash{'a'}?'yes':'no';
#no
[download]

sub foo{$_[0]=1}
foo($hash{'a'});
print exists $hash{'a'}?'yes':'no';
#yes
[download]

sub foo{$_[0]=$_[0]}
foo($hash{'a'});
print exists $hash{'a'}?'yes':'no';
#yes
[download]

sub foo{
    for($_[0]){
    }
}
foo($hash{'a'});
print exists $hash{'a'}?'yes':'no';
#no
[download]

sub foo{
    for($_[0]){
        $_=1;
    }
}
foo($hash{'a'});
print exists $hash{'a'}?'yes':'no';
#yes
[download]

Now, this one is, well, it's not consistent with 7..

for($hash{'a'}){
}
print exists $hash{'a'}?'yes':'no';
#yes
[download]

This one doesn't make sense to me, does it make any to you?

sub foo{
    for($_[0]){
        $_=$_;
    }
}
foo($hash{'a'});
print exists $hash{'a'}?'yes':'no';
#no
[download]

Comment on Hash Autovivification Weirdness Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Hash Autovivification Weirdness by Fletch (Bishop) on Apr 20, 2006 at 23:41 UTC
Yeah, that's really weird because your last example and the one numbered 8 produce practically identical output from B::Concise. --- /tmp/zsh6abfoh 2006-04-20 19:38:44.000000000 -0400 +++ /tmp/zshlFtUff 2006-04-20 19:38:44.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ j <@> leave[1 ref] vKP/REFC ->(end) 1 <0> enter ->2 -2 <;> nextstate(main 4 selfassign:6) v ->3 +2 <;> nextstate(main 4 1assign:6) v ->3 9 <1> entersub[t3] vKS/TARG,1 ->a - <1> ex-list K ->9 3 <0> pushmark s ->4 @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ 6 <$> const[PV "a"] s ->7 - <1> ex-rv2cv sK/1 ->- 8 <#> gv[*foo] s ->9 -a <;> nextstate(main 4 selfassign:7) v ->b +a <;> nextstate(main 4 1assign:7) v ->b i <@> print vK ->j b <0> pushmark s ->c - <1> null lK/1 ->i $ diff {1,self}assign 3c3 < $_=1; --- > $_=$_; [download] The only difference appears to be the filename. Really weird.	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Hash Autovivification Weirdness by Dietz (Curate) on Apr 23, 2006 at 16:15 UTC
I would have been surprised if your last example printed 'yes', but to be honest I wouldn't have known for sure without trying. Technically, it's the same as number 7, besides the unnecessary setting of the (uninitialized) value of $_ to itself. Your last example and number 7 do not try to set the key within the subroutine. Both examples are working on the alias @_ provides and not directly on the hash key as in your next to last example. Maybe you've been bitten by the similarity number 6 provides, where setting the key (through the alias $_[0]) to the undef value $_[0] provides will vivify the key. Whereas in your last example trying to reset the value of $_ to $_ will not vivify the key because you are not using the key by trying to initialize the key value with a defined value even if the value is undef. Setting $_ to $_ (`$_ = $_;`) will not change the value, hence there will be no update which could vivify the key. Changing the value of $_ (e.g. `$_ = undef;` or `$_ = 1;`) will cause an update which will vivify the key. The interesting part in this issue is that `$_ = $_;` looks like it will be handled like a no-op without updating the internal stack or whatever you may call it what is going on behind the scene.	[reply] [d/l] [select]


P is for Practical
	PerlMonks