Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
The stupid question is the question not asked
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: RFC: Idiom for named read-write arguments (aliases) instead of using $_[0] etc

by LanX (Canon)
on Sep 02, 2012 at 12:23 UTC ( #991272=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: RFC: Idiom for named read-write arguments (aliases) instead of using $_[0] etc
in thread RFC: Idiom for named read-write arguments (aliases) instead of using $_[0] etc

> Second, as long as we're working so hard to modify the parameter list, let's make the following a fatal error: swap( qw(this that) );

Thanks for pointing out this subtle difference!

After some meditation I actually I prefer this not being a fatal error!

The (lisp like) possibility of having references to literals always confused me to hell.

Back in time when LISP was running on 4 KB RAM it certainly made sense to avoid copies, but nowadays?

this little experiment shows whats happening when dereferencing a ref to a literal

$x=\1; $y=$$x; # equivalent to $y = 1, i.e. a copy $y++; print $y; #> 2

it's a copy and I thinks thats saner.

The other point is what a modifier-routine should return.

> But they all have a return value of the swapped list, so they're useful even when modifying the parameter list isn't the goal, right?

There are many possibilities:

- dual use by returning the swap => fault tolerance

- empty return to avoid double use => explicit use, ignore error

- carping if defined wantarray. => runtime warnings

But actually these design decisions are out of my scope, cause it doesn't inflict the idiom, cause it's the same problem when using $_[0] aliases etc.

for simplicity I'd simply add an empty return() to the example:

sub swap { my ($a, $b) = \(@_); ( $$a, $$b ) = ( $$b, $$a ); return; }

Cheers Rolf


Comment on Re^2: RFC: Idiom for named read-write arguments (aliases) instead of using $_[0] etc
Select or Download Code
Re^3: RFC: Idiom for named read-write arguments (aliases) instead of using $_[0] etc
by davido (Archbishop) on Sep 02, 2012 at 17:07 UTC

    When I first /msg'ed you to inquire whether you saw any differences, I at the time didn't either, and it wasn't until I investigated further that I realized there should be a fatal runtime error (and there is) with the non-unpacked version.

    Anyway, you present good arguments, but I am stubborn against considering it a new Perl idiom that should find its way into real code. I do like Moritz's "use perl6" version, because of how explicit it is, but still have concerns. :)

    Anyway, great RFC, as it produced good comments.


    Dave

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://991272]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (13)
As of 2014-07-23 12:28 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (141 votes), past polls