Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!?

by ikegami (Pope)
on Feb 09, 2012 at 05:50 UTC ( #952661=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!?
in thread RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!?

However, in almost all cases a hash based solution is done is such away it has all the disadvantages of not using strict

Not even close.

How is the following remotely the same as a program without strict:

while (<>) { my ($k, $v) = split; $h{$k} = $v; } for my $k (keys(%h)) { ... $h{$k} ... }


Comment on Re^3: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!?
Download Code
Re^4: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!?
by educated_foo (Vicar) on Feb 09, 2012 at 12:21 UTC
    It's not so hard:
    package P; while (<>) { my ($k, $v) = split; $$k = $v; } for my $k (keys(%P::)) { ... $$k ... }

      ... and the maintenance programmer who adds one or two features later will think you for occasionally, silently overwriting a few of his our-variables.

        In package P? I would never write real code this way, but ikegami's post was deliberately, absurdly clueless.

      It's not so hard

      Really? I don't see how the code you posted shows that the code I posted suffers from the same problems that strict refs is suppose to fix. Am I missing something?

      In fact, your code actually reinforces my point. our $x = 123; affects your code but not mine, so hashes are NOT just as bad as symbolic refs.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://952661]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others romping around the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-12-27 05:59 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (176 votes), past polls