Re: use strict won't require explicit name for all variables?

[Dog and Pony]

The reasons for this is already thouroughly explained, so I just want to add a word of "wisdom"... or something.

In any programming generally, you should really use describing variables, because, much like "use strict", it will save you a lot of grief down the road. In perl, specifically, it also makes sure you don't clash with any special variables. Most of the time, people just don't name their variables $" or $\, even when not being verbose, so it is rarely a problem - apart from a few cases like this one.

I do understand that this was only test code, but it doesn't hurt to use names like $first_element and $second_element or something, anyways. And, use lowercase variable names, so it will never clash with for example the names from "use English".

---

You have moved into a dark place.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

[Biker]

OK. Agreed. 100%.

But I can't stop myself from thinking that there might or will be situations where $a and $b may be meaningful.

In a Windows specific application, when accessing diskette drives A: and B: it wouldn't be very far fetched to name two variables $a and $b. If I already know that it's a bad thing I wouldn't do it. But someone who doesn't know about the special meaning of $a and $b could find it quite natural to use those variable names in this situation.

Personally, I have today learnt about $a and $b for life. But if I could be unaware of their special meaning, many more people will. My co-worker, who definitively is a Perl beginner, had no way of understanding the behavior on his own.



---

Everything will go worng!