In Perl, if I have:
no strict;
#ARY = (58, 90);
To operate on an element of the array, say it, the 2nd one, I would write (possibly as part of a larger expression):
$ARY[1] # The most common way found in Perldoc's idioms.
Though, for some reason these also work:
#ARY[1]
#{ARY[1]}
Resulting all in the same object:
print (\$ARY[1]);
print (\#ARY[1]);
print (\#{ARY[1]});
Output:
SCALAR(0x9dbcdc)
SCALAR(0x9dbcdc)
SCALAR(0x9dbcdc)
What is the syntax rules that enable this sort of constructs? How far could one devise reliable program code with each of these constructs, or with a mix of all of them either? How interchangeable are these expressions? (always speaking in a non-strict context).
On a concern of justifying how I come into this question, I agree "use strict" as a better practice, still I'm interested at some knowledge on build-up non-strict expressions.
In an attemp to find myself some help to this uneasiness, I came to:
The notion on "no strict;" of not complaining about undeclared
variables and quirk syntax.
The prefix dereference having higher precedence than subindex [] (perldsc § "Caveat on precedence").
The clarification on when to use # instead of $ (perldata § "Slices").
The lack of "[]" (array subscript / slice) description among the Perl's operators (perlop), which lead me to think it is not an
operator... (yet it has to be something else. But, what?).
For what I learned, none of these hints, put together, make me better understand my issue.
Thanks in advance.
Quotation from perlfaq4:
What is the difference between $array[1] and #array[1]?
The difference is the sigil, that special character in front of the array name. The $ sigil means "exactly one item", while the # sigil means "zero or more items". The $ gets you a single scalar, while the # gets you a list.
Please see: What is the difference between $array[1] and #array[1]?
#ARY[1] is indeed a slice, in fact a slice of only one member. The difference is it creates a list context:
#ar1[0] = qw( a b c ); # List context.
$ar2[0] = qw( a b c ); # Scalar context, the last value is returned.
print "<#ar1> <#ar2>\n";
Output:
<a> <c>
Besides using strict, turn warnings on, too. You'll get the following warning:
Scalar value #ar1[0] better written as $ar1[0]
In perlop, you can read that "Perl's prefix dereferencing operators are typed: $, #, %, and &." The standard syntax is SIGIL { ... }, but in the simple cases, the curly braces can be omitted.
See Can you use string as a HASH ref while "strict refs" in use? for some fun with no strict refs and its emulation under strict.
Extending choroba's answer, to check a particular context, you can use wantarray
sub context { return wantarray ? "LIST" : "SCALAR" }
print $ary1[0] = context(), "\n";
print #ary1[0] = context(), "\n";
Outputs:
SCALAR
LIST
Nothing you did requires no strict; other than to hide your error of doing
#ARY = (58, 90);
when you should have done
my #ARY = (58, 90);
The following returns a single element of the array. Since EXPR is to return a single index, it is evaluated in scalar context.
$array[EXPR]
e.g.
my #array = qw( a b c d );
my $index = 2;
my $ele = $array[$index]; # my $ele = 'c';
The following returns the elements identified by LIST. Since LIST is to return 0 or more elements, it must be evaluated in list context.
#array[LIST]
e.g.
my #array = qw( a b c d );
my #indexes ( 1, 2 );
my #slice = $array[#indexes]; # my #slice = qw( b c );
\( $ARY[$index] ) # Returns a ref to the element returned by $ARY[$index]
\( #ARY[#indexes] ) # Returns refs to each element returned by #ARY[#indexes]
${foo} # Weird way of writing $foo. Useful in literals, e.g. "${foo}bar"
#{foo} # Weird way of writing #foo. Useful in literals, e.g. "#{foo}bar"
${foo}[...] # Weird way of writing $foo[...].
Most people don't even know you can use these outside of string literals.
Related
Given:
my #list1 = ('a');
my #list2 = ('b');
my #list0 = ( \#list1, \#list2 );
then
my #listRef = $list0[1];
my #list = #$listRef; # works
but
my #list = #$($list0[1]); # gives an error message
I can't figure out why. What am I missing?
There is one simple de-referencing rule that covers this. Loosely put:
What follows the sigil need be the correct reference for it, or a block that evaluates to that.
A specific case from perlreftut
You can always use an array reference, in curly braces, in place of the name of an array.
In your case then, it should be
my #list = #{ $list0[1] };
(not index [2] since your #list0 has two elements) Spaces are there only for readability.
The attempted #$($list0[2]) is a syntax error, first because the ( (following the $) isn't allowed in an identifier (variable name), what presumably follows that $.
A block {} though would be allowed after the $ and would be evaluated, and must yield a scalar reference in this case, to be dereferenced by that $ in front of it; but then the first # would be in error. That can then fixed as well but this gets messy if pushed, and wasn't meant to go that far. While the exact rules are (still) a little murky, see Identifier Parsing in perldata.
The #$listRef earlier is correct syntax in general. But it refers to a scalar variable $listRef (which must be an array reference since it's getting dereferenced into an array by the first #), and there is no such a thing in the example -- you have an array variable #listRef.
So with use strict; in effect this, too, would fail to compile.
Dereferencing an arrayref to assign a new array is expensive as it has to copy all elements (and to construct the new array variable), while it's rarely needed (unless you actually want a copy). With the array reference on hand ($ar) all that one may need is readily available
#$ar; # list of elements
$ar->[$index]; # specific element
#$ar[#indices]; # slice -- list of some elements, like #$ar[0,2..5,-1]
$ar->#[0,-1]; # slice, with new "postfix dereferencing" (stable at v5.24)
$#$ar; # last index in the anonymous array referred by $ar
See Slices in perldata and Postfix reference slicing in perlref
You need
#{ $list0[1] }
Whenever you can use the name of a variable, you can use a block that evaluates to a reference. That means the syntax for getting the elements of an array are
#NAME # If you have the name
#BLOCK # If you have a reference
That means that
my #array1 = 4..5;
my #array2 = #array1;
and
my $array1 = [ 4..5 ];
my #array2 = #{ $array1 }
are equivalent.
When the only thing in the block is a simple scalar ($NAME or $BLOCK), you can omit the curlies. That means that
#{ $array1 }
is equivalent to
#$array1
That's why #$listRef works, and it's why #{ $list0[1] } can't be simplified.
See Perl Dereferencing Syntax.
You have a lot going on there and multiple levels of inadvertent references, so let's go through it:
First, you start by making a list of two items, each of which is an array reference. You store that in an array:
my #list0 = ( \#list2, \#list2 );
Then you ask for the item with index 2, which is a single item, and store that in an array:
my #listRef = $list0[2];
However, there is no item with index 2 because Perl indexes from zero. The value in #listRef in undefined. Not only that, but you've asked for a single item and stored it in an array instead of a scalar. That's probably not what you meant.
You say this following line works, but I don't think you know that because it won't give you the value you were expecting even if you didn't get an error. Something else is happening. You haven't declared or used a variable $listRef, so Perl creates it for you and gives it the value undef. When you try to dereference it, Perl uses "autovivification" to create the reference. This is the process where Perl helpfully creates a reference structure for you if you start with undef:
my #list = #$listRef; # works
There is nothing in that array so #list should be empty.
Fix that to get the last item, which has index of 1, and fix it so you are assigning the single value (the reference) to a scalar variable:
my $listRef = $list0[1];
Data::Dumper is handy here:
use Data::Dumper;
my #list2 = qw(a b c);
my #list0 = ( \#list2, \#list2 );
my $listRef = $list0[1];
print Dumper($listRef);
You get the output:
$VAR1 = [
'a',
'b',
'c'
];
Perl has some features that can catch these sorts of variable naming mistakes and will help you track down problems. Add these to the top of your program:
use strict;
use warnings;
For the rest, you might want to check out my book Intermediate Perl which explains all this reference stuff.
And, recent Perls have a new feature called postfix dereferencing that allows you to write dereferences from left to right:
my #items = ( \#list2, \#list2 );
my #items_of_last_ref = $items[1]->#*;
my #list = #$#listRef; # works
I doubt that works. That may not throw a syntax error but it sure as hell does not do what you think it does. For once
my #list0 = ( \#list2, \#list2 );
defines an array with 2 elements and you access
my #listRef = $list0[2];
the third element. So #listRef is an array that contains one element which is undef. The following code doesn't make sense either.
Unless the question is purely academic (answered by zdim already), I assume you want the second element of #list into a separate array, I would write
my #list = #{ $list0[1] };
The question is not complete and not clear on desired outcome.
OP tries to access an element $list0[2] of array #list0 which does not exist -- array has elements with indexes 0 and 1.
Perhaps #listRef should be $listRef instead in the post.
Bellow is my vision of described problem
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use feature 'say';
my #list1 = qw/word1 word2 word3 word4/;
my #list2 = 1000..1004;
my #list0 = (\#list1, \#list2);
my $ref_array = $list0[0];
map{ say } #{$ref_array};
$ref_array = $list0[1];
map{ say } #{$ref_array};
say "Element: " . #{$ref_array}[2];
output
word1
word2
word3
word4
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
Element: 1002
This code:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use 5.18.0;
use strict;
# Part 1
my $undef = undef;
print "1 $undef\n";
foreach my $index (#$undef) {
print "unreachable with no crash\n";
}
print "2 $undef\n";
# Part 2
my $undef = undef;
my #array = #$undef;
print "unreachable with crash\n";
Outputs:
1
2 ARRAY(0x7faefa803ee8)
Can't use an undefined value as an ARRAY reference at /tmp/perlfile line 12.
Questions about Part 1:
Why does dereferencing $undef in the Part 1 change $undef to an arrayref to an empty array?
Are there other contexts (other than a foreach) where dereferencing $undef would change it in the same way? What is the terminology to describe the most generic such case?
Questions about Part 2:
Why does dereferencing $undef in the Part 2 fall afoul of strict?
Are there other contexts (other than assignment) where dereferencing $undef would fall afoul of strict. What is the terminology to describe the most generic such case?
1) for() in Perl puts its operand into "l-value context", therefore the $undef is being auto-vivified into existence as an array (reference) with zero elements (see this relatively similar question/answer regarding l-value context).
3) Because you're trying to coercively assign an undefined value into something else in r-value context, and that's illegal under strict (nothing gets auto-vivified in this context, so you're not magically creating a variable from nothing like you would be in an l-value operation).
As far as question 2 and 4, there are several other context, too many to think of off the top of my head. For 2, map() comes to mind, or any other operation that treats the operand as an l-value.
When you dereference an undefined variable in lvalue context, Perl will auto-vivify the reference and that which it references.
For example,
#$ref = qw( a b c );
means
#{ $ref //= [] } = qw( a b c );
When you dereference an undefined variable in rvalue context, Perl won't auto-vivify. Under strict refs, this is an error. Otherwise, undefined is stringified (with warning) to the empty string, which is used as symbolic reference.
For example,
no strict qw( refs ); my $ref; my #a = #$ref;
is equivalent to
no strict qw( refs ); my #a = #{""};
(Aside from the lack of warning for the latter.)
Lvalue context is provided to:
The left-hand-side argument of assignments. (This is the "L" in "lvalue".)
Arguments of sub and method calls (because of aliasing of elements of #_).
Foreach's list (because of aliasing of $_).
The operands of some named operators (e.g. map and grep, because of aliasing of $_).
Why do we use function protoypes in Perl?
What are the different prototypes available? How to use them?
Example: $$,$#,\## what do they mean?
You can find the description in the official documentation: http://perldoc.perl.org/perlsub.html#Prototypes
But more important: read why you should not use function prototytpes" Why are Perl 5's function prototypes bad?
To write some functions, prototypes are absolutely neccessary, as they change the way arguments are passed, the sub invocations are parsed, and in what context the arguments are evaluated.
Below are discussions on prototypes with the builtins open and bless, as well as the effect on user-written code like a fold_left subroutine. I come to the conclusion that there are a few scenarios where they are useful, but they are generally not a good mechanism to cope with signatures.
Example: CORE::open
Some builtin functions have prototypes, e.g open. You can get the prototype of any function like say prototype "CORE::open". We get *;$#. This means:
The * takes a bareword, glob, globref or scalar. E.g. STDOUT or my $fh.
The ; makes the following arguments optional.
The $ evaluates the next item in scalar context. We'll see in a minute why this is good.
The # allows any number of arguments.
This allows invocations like
open FOO; (very bad style, equivalent to open FOO, our $FOO)
open my $fh, #array;, which parses as open my $fh, scalar(#array). Useless
open my $fh, "<foo.txt"; (bad style, allows shell injection)
open my $fh, "<", "foo.txt"; (good three-arg-open)
open my $fh, "-|", #command; (now #command is evaluated in list context, i.e. is flattened)
So why should the second argument have scalar context? (1) either you use traditional two-arg-open. Then it isn't difficult to access the first element. (2) Or you want 3-arg-open (rather: multiarg). Then having an explicit mode in the source code is neccessary, which is good style and reduces action at a distance. So this forces you to decide between the outdated flexible 2-arg or the safe multi-arg.
Further restrictions, like that the < mode can only take one filename, while -| takes at least one string (the command) plus any number of arguments, are implemented on a non-syntactic level.
Example: CORE::bless
Another interesting example is the bless function. Its prototype is $;$. I.e. takes one or two scalars.
This allows bless $self; (blesses into current package), or the better bless $self, $class. However, my #array = ($self, $class); bless #array does not work, as scalar context is imposed on the first arg. So the first argument is not a reference, but the number 2. This reduces action at a distance, and fails rather than providing a probably wrong interpretation: both bless $array[0], $array[1] or bless \#array could have been meant here. So prototypes help and augment input validation, but are no substitute for it.
Example fold_left
Let us define a function fold_left that takes a list and an action as arguments. It performs this action on the first two values of the list, and replaces them with the result. This loops until only one element, the return value is left.
Simple implementation:
sub fold_left {
my $code = shift;
while ($#_) { # loop while more than one element
my ($x, $y) = splice #_, 0, 2;
unshift #_, $code->($x, $y);
}
return $_[0];
}
This can be called like
my $sum = fold_left sub{ $_[0] + $_[1] }, 1 .. 10;
my $str = fold_left sub{ "$_[0] $_[1]" }, 1 .. 10;
my $undef = fold_left;
my $runtime_error = fold_left \"foo", 1..10;
But this is unsatisfactory: we know that the first argument is a sub, so the sub keyword is redundant. Also, We can call it without a sub, which we want to be illegal. With prototypes, we can work around that:
sub fold_left (&#) { ... }
The & states that we'll take a coderef. If this is the first argument, this allows the sub keyword and the comma after the sub block to be omitted. Now we can do
my $sum = fold_left { $_[0] + $_[1] } 1 .. 10; # aka List::Util::sum(1..10);
my $str = fold_left { "$_[0] $_[1]" } 1 .. 10; # aka join " ", 1..10;
my $compile_error1 = fold_left; # ERROR: not enough arguments
my $compile_error2 = fold_left "foo", 1..10; # ERROR: type of arg 1 must be sub{} or block.
which is reminiscent of map {...} #list
On backslash prototypes
Backslash prototypes allow to capture typed references to arguments without imposing context. This is good when we want to pass an array without flattening it. E.g.
sub mypush (\##) {
my ($arrayref, #push_these) = #_;
my $len = #$arrayref;
#$arrayref[$len .. $len + $#push_these] = #push_these;
}
my #array;
mypush #array, 1, 2, 3;
You can think of the \ protecting the # like in regexes, thus requiring a literal # character on the argument. This is where prototypes are a sad story: Requiring literal characters is a bad idea. We can't even pass a reference directly, we have to dereference it first:
my $array = [];
mypush #$array, 1, 2, 3;
even though the called code sees and wants exactly that reference. From v14 on, the + can be used instead. It accepts an array, arrayref, hash or hashref (actually, it's like $ on scalar arguments, and \[#%] on hashes and arrays). This proto does no type validation, It'll just make sure you receive a reference unless the argument already is scalar.
sub mypush (+#) { ... }
my #array;
mypush #array, 1, 2, 3;
my $array_ref = [];
mypush $array_ref, 1, 2, 3; # works as well! yay
my %hash;
mypush %hash, 1, 2, 3; # syntactically legal, but will throw fatal on dereferencing.
mypush "foo", 1, 2, 3; # ditto
Conclusion
Prototypes are a great way to bend Perl to your will. Recently I was investigating how pattern matching from functional languages can be implemented in Perl. The match itself has the prototype $% (one scalar thing which is to be matched, and an even number of further arguments. These are pairs of patterns and code).
They are also a great way to shoot yourself in the foot, and can be downright ugly. From List::MoreUtils:
sub each_array (\#;\#\#\#\#\#\#\#\#\#\#\#\#\#\#\#\#\#\#\#\#\#\#\#\#) {
return each_arrayref(#_);
}
This allows you to call it as each_array #a, #b, #c ..., but it isn't much effort to directly do each_arrayref \#a, \#b, \#c, ..., which imposes no limit on the number of parameters, and is more flexible.
Especially parameters like sub foo ($$$$$$;$$) indicate a code smell, and that you should move to named parameters, Method::Signatures, or Params::Validate.
In my experience, good prototypes are
#, % to slurp any (or an even) number of args. Note that # as sole prototype is equivalent to no prototype at all.
& leading codeblocks for nicer syntax.
$ iff you need to pad a slurpy # or %, but not on their own.
I actively dislike \# etc, and have yet to see a good use for _ aside from length (_ can be the last required argument in a prototype. If no explicit value is given, $_ is used.)
Having a good documentation and requiring the user of your subs to include the occasional backslash before your arguments is generally preferable to unexpected action at a distance or having scalar context imposed surprisingly.
Prototypes can be overridden like &foo(#args), and aren't honoured on method calls, so they are already useless here.
So I have this bit of code that does not work:
print $userInput."\n" x $userInput2; #$userInput = string & $userInput2 is a integer
It prints it out once fine if the number is over 0 of course, but it doesn't print out the rest if the number is greater than 1. I come from a java background and I assume that it does the concatenation first, then the result will be what will multiply itself with the x operator. But of course that does not happen. Now it works when I do the following:
$userInput .= "\n";
print $userInput x $userInput2;
I am new to Perl so I'd like to understand exactly what goes on with chaining, and if I can even do so.
You're asking about operator precedence. ("Chaining" usually refers to chaining of method calls, e.g. $obj->foo->bar->baz.)
The Perl documentation page perlop starts off with a list of all the operators in order of precedence level. x has the same precedence as other multiplication operators, and . has the same precedence as other addition operators, so of course x is evaluated first. (i.e., it "has higher precedence" or "binds more tightly".)
As in Java you can resolve this with parentheses:
print(($userInput . "\n") x $userInput2);
Note that you need two pairs of parentheses here. If you'd only used the inner parentheses, Perl would treat them as indicating the arguments to print, like this:
# THIS DOESN'T WORK
print($userInput . "\n") x $userInput2;
This would print the string once, then duplicate print's return value some number of times. Putting space before the ( doesn't help since whitespace is generally optional and ignored. In a way, this is another form of operator precedence: function calls bind more tightly than anything else.
If you really hate having more parentheses than strictly necessary, you can defeat Perl with the unary + operator:
print +($userInput . "\n") x $userInput2;
This separates the print from the (, so Perl knows the rest of the line is a single expression. Unary + has no effect whatsoever; its primary use is exactly this sort of situation.
This is due to precedence of . (concatenation) operator being less than the x operator. So it ends up with:
use strict;
use warnings;
my $userInput = "line";
my $userInput2 = 2;
print $userInput.("\n" x $userInput2);
And outputs:
line[newline]
[newline]
This is what you want:
print (($userInput."\n") x $userInput2);
This prints out:
line
line
As has already been mentioned, this is a precedence issue, in that the repetition operator x has higher precedence than the concatenation operator .. However, that is not all that's going on here, and also, the issue itself comes from a bad solution.
First off, when you say
print (($foo . "\n") x $count);
What you are doing is changing the context of the repetition operator to list context.
(LIST) x $count
The above statement really means this (if $count == 3):
print ( $foo . "\n", $foo . "\n", $foo . "\n" ); # list with 3 elements
From perldoc perlop:
Binary "x" is the repetition operator. In scalar context or if the left operand is not enclosed in parentheses, it returns a string consisting of the left operand repeated the number of times specified by the right operand. In list context, if the left operand is enclosed in parentheses or is a list formed by qw/STRING/, it repeats the list. If the right operand is zero or negative, it returns an empty string or an empty list, depending on the context.
The solution works as intended because print takes list arguments. However, if you had something else that takes scalar arguments, such as a subroutine:
foo(("text" . "\n") x 3);
sub foo {
# #_ is now the list ("text\n", "text\n", "text\n");
my ($string) = #_; # error enters here
# $string is now "text\n"
}
This is a subtle difference which might not always give the desired result.
A better solution for this particular case is to not use the concatenation operator at all, because it is redundant:
print "$foo\n" x $count;
Or even use more mundane methods:
for (0 .. $count) {
print "$foo\n";
}
Or
use feature 'say'
...
say $foo for 0 .. $count;
Please explain this apparently inconsistent behaviour:
$a = b, c;
print $a; # this prints: b
$a = (b, c);
print $a; # this prints: c
The = operator has higher precedence than ,.
And the comma operator throws away its left argument and returns the right one.
Note that the comma operator behaves differently depending on context. From perldoc perlop:
Binary "," is the comma operator. In
scalar context it evaluates its left
argument, throws that value away, then
evaluates its right argument and
returns that value. This is just like
C's comma operator.
In list context, it's just the list
argument separator, and inserts both
its arguments into the list. These
arguments are also evaluated from left
to right.
As eugene's answer seems to leave some questions by OP i try to explain based on that:
$a = "b", "c";
print $a;
Here the left argument is $a = "b" because = has a higher precedence than , it will be evaluated first. After that $a contains "b".
The right argument is "c" and will be returned as i show soon.
At that point when you print $a it is obviously printing b to your screen.
$a = ("b", "c");
print $a;
Here the term ("b","c") will be evaluated first because of the higher precedence of parentheses. It returns "c" and this will be assigned to $a.
So here you print "c".
$var = ($a = "b","c");
print $var;
print $a;
Here $a contains "b" and $var contains "c".
Once you get the precedence rules this is perfectly consistent
Since eugene and mugen have answered this question nicely with good examples already, I am going to setup some concepts then ask some conceptual questions of the OP to see if it helps to illuminate some Perl concepts.
The first concept is what the sigils $ and # mean (we wont descuss % here). # means multiple items (said "these things"). $ means one item (said "this thing"). To get first element of an array #a you can do $first = $a[0], get the last element: $last = $a[-1]. N.B. not #a[0] or #a[-1]. You can slice by doing #shorter = #longer[1,2].
The second concept is the difference between void, scalar and list context. Perl has the concept of the context in which your containers (scalars, arrays etc.) are used. An easy way to see this is that if you store a list (we will get to this) as an array #array = ("cow", "sheep", "llama") then we store the array as a scalar $size = #array we get the length of the array. We can also force this behavior by using the scalar operator such as print scalar #array. I will say it one more time for clarity: An array (not a list) in scalar context will return, not an element (as a list does) but rather the length of the array.
Remember from before you use the $ sigil when you only expect one item, i.e. $first = $a[0]. In this way you know you are in scalar context. Now when you call $length = #array you can see clearly that you are calling the array in scalar context, and thus you trigger the special property of an array in list context, you get its length.
This has another nice feature for testing if there are element in the array. print '#array contains items' if #array; print '#array is empty' unless #array. The if/unless tests force scalar context on the array, thus the if sees the length of the array not elements of it. Since all numerical values are 'truthy' except zero, if the array has non-zero length, the statement if #array evaluates to true and you get the print statement.
Void context means that the return value of some operation is ignored. A useful operation in void context could be something like incrementing. $n = 1; $n++; print $n; In this example $n++ (increment after returning) was in void context in that its return value "1" wasn't used (stored, printed etc).
The third concept is the difference between a list and an array. A list is an ordered set of values, an array is a container that holds an ordered set of values. You can see the difference for example in the gymnastics one must do to get particular element after using sort without storing the result first (try pop sort { $a cmp $b } #array for example, which doesn't work because pop does not act on a list, only an array).
Now we can ask, when you attempt your examples, what would you want Perl to do in these cases? As others have said, this depends on precedence.
In your first example, since the = operator has higher precedence than the ,, you haven't actually assigned a list to the variable, you have done something more like ($a = "b"), ("c") which effectively does nothing with the string "c". In fact it was called in void context. With warnings enabled, since this operation does not accomplish anything, Perl attempts to warn you that you probably didn't mean to do that with the message: Useless use of a constant in void context.
Now, what would you want Perl to do when you attempt to store a list to a scalar (or use a list in a scalar context)? It will not store the length of the list, this is only a behavior of an array. Therefore it must store one of the values in the list. While I know it is not canonically true, this example is very close to what happens.
my #animals = ("cow", "sheep", "llama");
my $return;
foreach my $animal (#animals) {
$return = $animal;
}
print $return;
And therefore you get the last element of the list (the canonical difference is that the preceding values were never stored then overwritten, however the logic is similar).
There are ways to store a something that looks like a list in a scalar, but this involves references. Read more about that in perldoc perlreftut.
Hopefully this makes things a little more clear. Finally I will say, until you get the hang of Perl's precedence rules, it never hurts to put in explicit parentheses for lists and function's arguments.
There is an easy way to see how Perl handles both of the examples, just run them through with:
perl -MO=Deparse,-p -e'...'
As you can see, the difference is because the order of operations is slightly different than you might suspect.
perl -MO=Deparse,-p -e'$a = a, b;print $a'
(($a = 'a'), '???');
print($a);
perl -MO=Deparse,-p -e'$a = (a, b);print $a'
($a = ('???', 'b'));
print($a);
Note: you see '???', because the original value got optimized away.