<OPINION>
Problem or not problem. I consider the usage of certain variable names as 'special' variables a problem.
Will $nbr be used as a special variable one day? Or what about $i if we stick to one character names? (Wonder how many scripts would be broken by that last one.)
OK, so $a and $b were both there before me, but how am I to know? How am I to know that I need to read up on sort to know that they exist?
I admit that there are $_ and many other 'special' variables and I use them on a daily basis. But they look different and I instinctively don't use those names as my working variables. With $a and $b I have to explicitly be aware of their special behavior/existence or else devine their existence which is very far from intuitive.
But that is, of course, just an opinion. ;-)
</OPINION>
Everything will go worng!
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
Hmm. On second thought there is a problem. These variables should be listed under perlvar.
As should $1 up. That would place all of the variables that have special meaning in one place and would reduce the possibility of this type of error. (Well assuming RTFM ;-)
I will send a perlbug report out today on this issue. Maybe itll be factored into 5.8?
UPDATE: DOH! $1 and the regex vars _are_ documented under perlvar. By bad.
UPDATE: A documentation enhancement request has been sent to the perlbug people...
Yves / DeMerphq
--
When to use Prototypes?
| [reply] |
see 'perlman strict', paragraph 'strict vars'
Have a nice day
All decision is left to your taste
Update:
QUOTE: "Because of their special use by sort(), the variables $a and $b are exempted from this check."
End of discussion :-)
| [reply] |
