Re: Re^3: The Cost of Nested Referencing

I *personally* would rather stay away from

   statement if condition
   statement for(@list)
[download]

...because that way I'm less likely to be bashed by others claiming that (my) perl code is unreadable ;)

Comment on Re: Re^3: The Cost of Nested Referencing Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: The Cost of Nested Referencing by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Nov 20, 2002 at 18:34 UTC
Why? What's more readable about `foreach my $foo (@bar) { do_something($foo); }` [download] than `do_something($_) foreach @bar;` ? All I see is twice as much to type and read with absolutely no difference to the clarity. Especially when you nest a few of those and it ends up something like `for $blah (@blah) { # ... # ... # ... if($whatever) { last; } while($foo) { if(@bar) { # ... while($baz) { # ... # ... # ... } if($whatever) { next; } elsif($snafu) { last; } else { # ... } # ... # ... } # ... } } # ... # ... }` [download] It's atrocious. Please use a few `last if ...` and spare me the effort of having to eyeparse 15 levels of indentation. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Re^5: The Cost of Nested Referencing by lestrrat (Deacon) on Nov 20, 2002 at 18:39 UTC
All I can say is that you probably don't have non-Perl programmers around you who look at your perl-ism laden perl code. I don't care myself - I think the perl-isms are cool, so I use them when it's code that only I look at. But when other people may look into it - who are not perl programmers - I try to write code that is as close to the common denominator	[reply]
Re^7: The Cost of Nested Referencing by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Nov 20, 2002 at 18:43 UTC
Would you try to talk English such that understanding would be easier for a French? Update: choose your poison, I guess. :-) Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re: Re^7: The Cost of Nested Referencing by lestrrat (Deacon) on Nov 20, 2002 at 18:49 UTC


Don't ask to ask, just ask
	PerlMonks