comment on

When autovivification is mentioned at all, it is to rave about its (undeniable) virtues, i.e. the Good. It's as if we are so eager to encourage the tremulous newbie to try riding the bicycle without the training wheels, that we don't want to dampen any enthusiasm with talk of potholes, and semis.

My experiance is just the opposite. The first time I see most new Perl programmers run into it is when it causes some bug, which causes some (understandable) complaints about the feature.

I do wish exists was special cased to not autoviv a deep element when a shallow element doesn't exist.

"There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.

In reply to Re: The Bad, the Ugly, and the Good of autovivification by hardburn
in thread The Bad, the Ugly, and the Good of autovivification by tlm

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW
	PerlMonks