3.6. Nested Data StructuresIn this example, the array @_ contains two elements, one of which is also an array. What if you take a reference to an array that also contains a reference to an array? You end up with a complex data structure, which can be quite useful. For example, iterate over the data for the Skipper, Gilligan, and the Professor by first building a larger data structure holding the entire list of provision lists:
At this point, @skipper_with_name has two elements, the second of which is an array reference, similar to what was passed to the subroutine. Now group them all: my @all_with_names = ( \@skipper_with_name, \@professor_with_name, \@gilligan_with_name, ); Note that you have just three elements, each of which is a reference to an array, each of which has two elements: the name and its corresponding initial provisions. A picture of that is in Figure 3-1. ![]() Figure 3-1. The array @all_with_names holds a multilevel data structure containing strings and references to arraysTherefore, $all_with_names[2] will be the array reference for the Gilligan's data. If you dereference it as @{$all_with_names[2]}, you get a two-element array, "Gilligan" and another array reference. How would you access that array reference? Using your rules again, it's ${$all_with_names[2]}[1]. In other words, taking $all_with_names[2], you dereference it in an expression that would be something like $DUMMY[1] as an ordinary array, so you'll place {$all_with_names[2]} in place of DUMMY. How do you call the existing check_required_items( ) with this data structure? The following code is easy enough.
This requires no changes to the subroutine. $person will be each of $all_with_names[0], $all_with_names[1], and $all_with_names[2], as the loop progresses. When you dereference $$person[0], you get "Skipper," "Professor," and "Gilligan," respectively. $$person[1] is the corresponding array reference of provisions for that person. Of course, you can shortcut this as well, since the entire dereferenced array matches the argument list precisely:
or even: check_required_items(@$_) for @all_with_names; As you can see, various levels of optimization can lead to obfuscation. Be sure to consider where your head will be a month from now when you have to reread your own code. If that's not enough, consider the new person who takes over your job after you have left.
Copyright © 2003 O'Reilly & Associates. All rights reserved. |
|