in reply to Re^2: The Bad, the Ugly, and the Good of autovivification
in thread The Bad, the Ugly, and the Good of autovivification
Overlooking the smug tone; there's a limit of where people don't want to rely on non-standard modules. Small things like this get reimplemented over and over again, because it's "so small" and it's "not necessary to use a module for that". When a module become standard, that attitude changes somewhat.
Now, I'm not saying that this particular module should be in the standard library, but I definately think your categorical rejection of it lacks. Slightly overlooking that the choice to include a module in the standard library seems somewhat arbitrary; many of the newer standard modules are "Perl close", i.e. they solve a problem that has to do with Perl the language, and many others solve omni-present problems. Creating a GUI and your other examples are not omni-present problems. When does a module qualify as a standard module for you?
ihb
See perltoc if you don't know which perldoc to read!
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^4: The Bad, the Ugly, and the Good of autovivification
by Anonymous Monk on Apr 12, 2005 at 09:53 UTC |