@{"color"} perl interprets that as an attempt to dereference a string. So perl treats the string "color" as a symbolic reference, which causes perl to go to the symbol table and look up "color", and the @ tells perl to grab what's in the ARRAY slot for "color".

But if the name "color" does not exist in the symbol table, then perl will create this name. So, perl either creates new, or grabs existing. This is the consistent behavior of perl. So the *{"thing"} usage is as consistent as @{"thing"}. The only difference between the two is what is being accessed/created. Why do you need to put so many complications around it?

#!/usr/bin/perl

@{"color"} = qw(a b c);  # this creates new name "color"
                         # and uses ARRAY slot of the name
@{"color-ab"} = qw(1 2 3); # this also creates new name
                           # and uses ARRAY slot of it.

print join(',', @color), "\n"; # here I use the name created above
print join(',', @{"color-ab"}), "\n"; # I can't access this name
                                      # using "normal" perl syntax
*{"other"} = *{"color-ab"};  # this creates new name "other",
                             # and this name shall reference 
                             # the same slots as "color-ab" name
print join(',', @other), "\n";

${"color-ab"} = 10;  # set "color-ab" variable
print $other, "\n";  # see the difference in $other.
[download]

Why do you need to put so many complications around it?

Sorry. I just wanted to find an explanation for the syntax. I understand what the net result is--but if I don't understand how perl interprets the syntax then I won't be able to figure out what is happening in other contexts.

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.

Thanks.

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.