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

[Biker]

Thanks go out to both dws and Matts. I've never been using the sort routines in Perl. And I never name my variables like $a, $b or $c either. So I haven't been in this trouble.

I hope that perl 6 will do something to avoid this 'problem'. In the mean time, I'll tell my co-worker to avoid those names. ;-)

---

Everything will go worng!

[demerphq]

Well, its not really a problem, so im not sure Perl 6 will do much about it.

;-)

Yves / DeMerphq
--
When to use Prototypes?

[Biker]

<OPINION>
Problem or not problem. I consider the usage of certain variable names as 'special' variables a problem.
Will $nbr be used as a special variable one day? Or what about $i if we stick to one character names? (Wonder how many scripts would be broken by that last one.)

OK, so $a and $b were both there before me, but how am I to know? How am I to know that I need to read up on sort to know that they exist?

I admit that there are $_ and many other 'special' variables and I use them on a daily basis. But they look different and I instinctively don't use those names as my working variables. With $a and $b I have to explicitly be aware of their special behavior/existence or else devine their existence which is very far from intuitive.

But that is, of course, just an opinion. ;-)
</OPINION>



---

Everything will go worng!

[demerphq]

Hmm. On second thought there is a problem. These variables should be listed under perlvar.

As should $1 up. That would place all of the variables that have special meaning in one place and would reduce the possibility of this type of error. (Well assuming RTFM ;-)

I will send a perlbug report out today on this issue. Maybe itll be factored into 5.8?

UPDATE: DOH! $1 and the regex vars _are_ documented under perlvar. By bad.

UPDATE: A documentation enhancement request has been sent to the perlbug people...

Yves / DeMerphq
--
When to use Prototypes?