Suppose $row is a DBIx::Class::Row object and `field` is a column accessor on that object. If $row->field will return undef in scalar context, what will it return in list context? is this a trick question? The docs at http://search.cpan.org/dist/DBIx-Class/lib/DBIx/Class/Row.pm#$column_accessor don't explain or give examples of the list context behavior. No, not at all. the accessors don't have a list context behaviour So @array = $row->field should place a single undef into @row? I'm confused as to what led you to ask this question We have an example where $row->field is returning an empty list, and I'm trying to track down where the problem is. * osfameron has quit (Remote host closed the connection) I guessed it was probably in some wrapper class, but I thought I should check with you about what the expected DBIC behavior was first. In case you might say “Yeah, it should return undef, but we had to make it return empty list for (some obscure pragmatic reason I couldn't possibly guess)” happily, I didn't manage to make a mistake that led to that the context sensitivity fuckups are in another castle Still waiting for you to answer my question. no you aren't, I said "don't have a list context behaviour" already That does not make sense. The method has a behavior and it can be called in list context. My question is, what does it do when it is called in list context? Or rather, what is it supposed to do. behave the same way it always does, hence why we don't document list context separately And what way is that? * osfameron (~osfameron@www.greenokapi.net) has joined #dbix-class returning the value of the field if you're getting () something has gone wrong So if the field is null, it should return a list consisting of a single undef? it *does* do that. if it doesn't, somebody broke it. Great, thanks. note: rather than being your usual condescending borderline hostile self, this would've gone much more quickly if you'd started off with "I've got an accessor that's returning () in list context, is that normal or is it more likely an extension broke it?" and I could've said "the latter" asking the real question gets you the real answer faster Sorry, I thought my question was clear ,and I did the best I could. For example, I did say “We have an example where $row->field is returning an empty list, and I'm trying to track down where the problem is.” which seems to me very similar to your suggestion there. yes, after I asked why you were asking. I'm suggesting next time we skip that step. It seems to me like things went pretty well this time. I asked my question, you asked for clarification, and I provided exactly the clarification that you said you would have wanted. If you want to skip steps, you might try assuming my good faith, and skipping the step where you accuse me of asking trick questions. and we're straight back to condescending and borderline hostile; that was a genuine question, not an accusation, and I'd thank you to try assuming good faith yourself Thanks for your help on this.