in reply to Re^2: RFC: CGI::Tables (topicalize with for)
in thread RFC: CGI::Tables

Absolutely; I often topicalize with for. But I'd also write "ref $_" as "ref" or "ref()" -- concision!

    -- Chip Salzenberg, Free-Floating Agent of Chaos

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: RFC: CGI::Tables (topicalize with for)
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on May 11, 2003 at 02:19 UTC
    I don't generally like foo() much for routines that operate on $_. In this case I added it because I'd've had to if I'd written
    'HASH' eq ref ? $_ : {}
    as the question mark is then parsed as a pattern delimiter instead of as part of a ternary. I usually write my comparisons that way around. But here neither the parens nor the variable is necessary as the following eq is unambiguous as to its meaning.

    Makeshifts last the longest.