Do you know where your variables are? | |
PerlMonks |
Re^4: What am I not understanding about $,by BrowserUk (Patriarch) |
on May 20, 2016 at 07:55 UTC ( [id://1163593]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
are you thinking about overloading the ?? operator? No. The point was simply that if you don't know perl, both those things are likely to be unreadable. I fail to see a reason why nested function calls might be detrimental from a robustness point of view though. Reductio ad absurdum, dear boy, reductio ad absurdum! You're taking my post far too seriously at the microscopic level; and Personally, I always feel a strange tingling when using "@expand_me", and I do so only in very basic situations and temporary print statements for debugging. I prefer Ovid's way in code that has a longer lifespan. I can't say it better than I did in my next post in this thread: Being selective about what functionality you accept as legitimate, and what you personally choose to reject is one thing; attempting to impose your affectations upon the world at large is another. If you haven't read it, that same post goes into much more detail of my feelings about selectivity. I have no problem with your or Ovid's preferences -- I have my own -- but I do have a problem with Ovid's (and most other) justifications for rejecting parts of the language: ... nobody knows what $" is, but everyone knows what join() is. This is where I set the line between idiomatic and idiotic. I wish I said that. Then again, I probably will :) With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I knew I was on the right track :)
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom
|
|