|XP is just a number|
Re: last/next/redo usagesby sundialsvc4 (Abbot)
|on Mar 22, 2018 at 01:45 UTC||Need Help??|
Thank you for once more coming to my defense.
I stand by my previous reply in spite of the 12 downvotes it has so-far received and offer this new response as a bully-target for many more downvotes should you so choose. (Go ahead. Make my day.)
Or, maybe not?
The original code was obviously written by someone who didn’t know that his code was fundamentally wrong. (And, he took advantage of the too-forgiving nature of the Perl interpreter, which IMHO should have thrown a fatal-error if it encountered a next statement outside of a loop. But that is “historical interpreter behavior” now.)
But now, let’s put ourselves into the point-of-view of someone who is innocently encountering this code for the first time. One of the basic assumptions that you tend to make about “original source code” is that the original author knew what (s)he was doing: that if there is a next statement here, then it must be valid, it must be correct, and there must be a good reason for it. But, guess what: none of these statements are true.
Furthermore, the “innocent follower” would actually have to go to the PerlDoc description of the module in question, discover the comments that the author of that PerlDoc chose to explicitly make, and from this discover the gross(!) errors made by his erstwhile predecessor.
Thus, my original recommendation, by which I now stand: “fix the damned thing.” Don’t require any of your successors to face this same error as made by the now long-lost original programmer, ever again. (Then, please grep the source-code library for more possible occurrences of it ...)