in reply to Re^8: typeglob/symbolic reference question
in thread typeglob/symbolic reference question

I guess, I can't understand what is the meaning of "explanation for the syntax". I know that there's syntax for doing different things. I don't understand why the syntax has to be explained. I mean, it is not common to search for the explanation of syntax of English language. The syntax (together with words) makes English different from say Russian :)

I guess for now I'll just have to go with *color and *{"color"} are equivalent--even though *{"color"} is not legal under strict refs.

"strict refs" just tries to limit you to the rigid forms of "normal" usage. This is done in hope to catch some obscure errors. It does not change the fact, that *color and *{"color"} do the same thing. Though with the second syntax you can do more obscure things than with the first (that is why "strict" does not approve it :) ) Well, as long as your understanding does not limit you in what you can do with perl, there shouldn't be any problems.

  • Comment on Re^9: typeglob/symbolic reference question