in reply to Re^3: The Bad, the Ugly, and the Good of autovivification
in thread The Bad, the Ugly, and the Good of autovivification
Well, I'm beginning to repeat myself, so this will be my last attempt. The post from the start was a comment on how the standard sources of Perl documentation give short shrift to the issue of autovivification-related bugs, and that this is something that should be corrected (either that, or change the way Perl autovivifies to eliminate the most common of these bugs). The Perl documentation would be perfectly accurate, but much less useful, if it limited itself to describing how things work without ever mentioning pitfalls. You conveniently give the example of open: well, the Perl docs are rife with admonitions against failing to check the return value of open. There should be similar warnings about autovivification bugs. At the very least they deserve an entry in perltrap, and a pointer to this entry in perlref, and even also in perlreftut
the lowliest monk
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^5: The Bad, the Ugly, and the Good of autovivification
by Anonymous Monk on Apr 11, 2005 at 09:09 UTC |