Re^4: Why is const x const not a const?

Better, name it after its use, rather than its constituents.

use Readonly;
Readonly my $SECTION_SEPARATOR => q{=}x80;
[download]

As Occam said: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Comment on Re^4: Why is const x const not a const? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^5: Why is const x const not a const?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 22, 2012 at 20:39 UTC

No. You are absolutely wrong on all counts!

First. Look at the post I was responding to. The premise was, that it is much clearer from '=' x 80 that there are 80 '=' than if you used

==================================================================
[download]

so your 'correction' is wrong in context.

Secondly, your assumption that that string is a "SECTION_SEPERATOR" is wrong. It cannot be right, because you have no basis upon which to reach that conclusion.

But mostly, trading use constant for that vacuous, puerile, slow, stupid, braindead, idiotic, stupid -- did I say stupid already? -- worthless, pathetic, fscked-up, oxymoronic piece of crap is ... um .. oh dear, I seems to have run out of appropriate adjectives.

Update: Oooh. OOoh! I thought of one: fatuous. ( I didn't use that already did I? )

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

The start of some sanity?

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]


go ahead... be a heretic
	PerlMonks