Re: Re: Re: Re: Two-arg open() considered dangerous

Well of course there's a balance, rob. But I'm rather tired of excuses for poor design decisions that make writing robust software more difficult without any real gains.

Why couldn't three-arg open have been in Perl from the start of its being a full language, i.e. 3.0 or so? It should have been.

-- Chip Salzenberg, Free-Floating Agent of Chaos

Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: Two-arg open() considered dangerous

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two-arg open() considered dangerous by rob_au (Abbot) on Dec 13, 2001 at 04:48 UTC
For the most part, I think this is probably simply a result of language evolution - I'm sure that even once Perl 6 is released, we'll still be finding syntactical anomalies that could better be rewritten and indeed most likely will be. Don't get me wrong, this statement isn't meant to dissuade your argument, but rather support it - I see great value in your comments and its such comments that are required to drive changes. However, as with all aspects of Perl, its "perfection in progress" ;-) `perl -e 's&&rob@cowsnet.com.au&&&split/[@.]/&&s&.com.&_&&&print'`	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two-arg open() considered dangerous by chip (Curate) on Dec 13, 2001 at 04:54 UTC
Well, I wouldn't call it a "result" of language evolution; it's more an impetus for evolution. :-) That said: I certainly wouldn't want to prevent Perl from being released just because of little warts like two-arg open. "Better is better than perfect." So I think we're in agreement on what to do about warts: Fix 'em and get on with life. -- Chip Salzenberg, Free-Floating Agent of Chaos	[reply]


Clear questions and runnable code get the best and fastest answer
	PerlMonks