http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=952661


in reply to Re^2: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!?
in thread RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!?

However, in almost all cases a hash based solution is done is such away it has all the disadvantages of not using strict

Not even close.

How is the following remotely the same as a program without strict: 

while (<>) {
   my ($k, $v) = split;
   $h{$k} = $v;
}

for my $k (keys(%h)) {
   ... $h{$k} ...
}

[download]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!?
by educated_foo (Vicar) on Feb 09, 2012 at 12:21 UTC
    It's not so hard: 
    package P;
while (<>) {
   my ($k, $v) = split;
   $$k = $v;
}

for my $k (keys(%P::)) {
    ... $$k ...
}

    [download]
[reply]
[d/l]

      ... and the maintenance programmer who adds one or two features later will think you for occasionally, silently overwriting a few of his our-variables.

      Perl 6 - second systems done right
[reply]
        In package P? I would never write real code this way, but ikegami's post was deliberately, absurdly clueless.
[reply]

      It's not so hard

      Really? I don't see how the code you posted shows that the code I posted suffers from the same problems that strict refs is suppose to fix. Am I missing something?

      In fact, your code actually reinforces my point. our $x = 123; affects your code but not mine, so hashes are NOT just as bad as symbolic refs.

[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Meditations