http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=113437


in reply to Re: Best method for failure recovery?
in thread Best method for failure recovery?

That method had occurred to me, but in a way I think the problem would be similar from a maintenance perspective.

On the one hand, it doesn't use a goto, but on the other hand, it uses symbolic (Update: Ack! they're not symbolic, I just didn't read it right! thanks!!)coderefs. If the future maintainer isn't a perl guy (and in some cases, even if he is), he'll have a much better chance of cursing my name but still getting through it if there's something as hated and feared, but at least known as a goto, than if I stick him with something where the only clue is no strict 'refs' and some good comments.

Still, for validation of the parameter, your solution is much easier and more reliable. There is a "guaranteed" set of steps in a "guaranteed" order, and you can't just jump to any old arbitrary place in the script. From that point of view, I may go with it instead.

thanks!

MM

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re3: Best method for failure recovery?
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Sep 19, 2001 at 22:55 UTC
    Actually, the list of coderefs does not use symbolic references. Using symbolic references would be something like&{"$recovery};. What I do is use hard references instead.

    And, as always, you should comment any use of an advanced feature, such as coderefs, if you expect your code to be maintained by people who know less than you do. This is for every language, not just Perl.

    ------
    We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

    Don't go borrowing trouble. For programmers, this means Worry only about what you need to implement.

[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom