Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer
 
PerlMonks  

Re (tilly) 1: using strict and functions

by tilly (Archbishop)
on Jan 18, 2002 at 22:49 UTC ( #139909=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to using strict and functions

This looks to me to be an example of believing that a fundamental issue can be fixed by renaming what you are doing.

It doesn't work like that.

The effect that you are trying to achieve is that of a global. If you succeed in achieving that effect, you will have all of the fundamental design advantages and disadvantages that globals have. (They do have both.) The mechanism that you use to achieve the effect has no relevance beyond the fact that you are imposing overhead and obscuring what you are doing.

This is why I recommend that people not just understand that something is bad, but also understand why it is bad. We tend to complain of "cargo cult" code where people borrow code by rote without understanding. But the flip side of the same coin is no better in the end, accepting that certain labels are bad without understanding why.

Therefore, unless you want a specific subtly different effect than what globals give, I would be honest about it and just declare a global with vars. Oh, every alternative will have small advantages and disadvantages over this. For instance using a single global hash gives you only "one" global - but you impose overhead and lose typo checking.

For more on the issues with globals, and how changing the label does (not) address them, see Pass by reference vs globals.


Comment on Re (tilly) 1: using strict and functions

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://139909]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (5)
As of 2014-08-01 04:20 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (256 votes), past polls