Re: Three argument version of open '>-' (de-critic)


Your skill will accomplish what the force of many cannot
	PerlMonks

by LanX (Saint)

on Mar 02, 2021 at 02:16 UTC ( [id://11128977]=note: print w/replies, xml )

Need Help??

> Perl::Critic complains about it and wants us to replace it with a three argument variant. But, what's the 3-arg variant of >-?

From a pragmatic point of view, I'd say:

Adjust the Perl::Critic rule!

I mean it's an interesting question, but probably it's not possible to duplicate all these exact implementation details.

This particular 2 args syntax OTOH is documented and legit.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

and by all communist gods, why would you like to have a duplicate of STDOUT which fails globally without warning?

Probably this feature is simply broken.

Comment on Re: Three argument version of open '>-' (de-critic)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Three argument version of open '>-' (updated) by jcb (Parson) on Mar 02, 2021 at 02:41 UTC
Seconding this: `Perl::Critic` is simply wrong here. The primary risk of two-argument open is the possibility of a "strange" filename improperly triggering the magic (How about a "file" named '`rm -rf / \|`'?), but in this case the filename is a literal constant and that is not possible. This is a bug in Perl::Critic — your particular use of the two-argument syntax is fine.	[reply] [d/l]

Domain Nodelet^?

Node Status^?

node history
Node Type: note [id://11128977]
help

Chatterbox^?

How do I use this? • Last hour • Other CB clients

Other Users^?

Others avoiding work at the Monastery: (3)

As of 2024-04-26 00:11 GMT

Sections^?

Information^?

Find Nodes^?

Leftovers^?

Voting Booth^?

No recent polls found