Re: Re: s/// operator and binding

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: s/// operator and binding by sauoq (Abbot) on Jan 28, 2003 at 00:39 UTC
I don't want to answer for Ovid but I especially dislike mixing the declaration with that kind of assignment. I'd prefer `my $foo; ($foo = $bar) =~ s/baz/qux/;` [download] but if you are going to separate them anyway, it makes perfect sense to do it in a way that makes all the steps blindingly obvious such as this: `my $foo = $bar; $bar =~ s/baz/qux/;` [download] There's rarely a good reason to sacrifice clarity for brevity. -sauoq "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Re: Re: s/// operator and binding by Cat (Initiate) on Jan 28, 2003 at 00:45 UTC
Well it's ugly to me because it's not immediately apparent what you're trying to do. Why not just do this `my($path) = $logfilepath; $path =~ s/$ref_srv/$server/i;` [download] Choosing between the two, I'd go with the simpler. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should ;) update (broquaint): changed `<pre>` to `<code>`	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Re: Re: s/// operator and binding by Ovid (Cardinal) on Jan 28, 2003 at 00:45 UTC
For me, this is an aesthetic thing that you can safely ignore. If I want extra parentheses, I'd code in Lisp :) If you like them, however, it's not a problem, so don't worry about my blather. Cheers, Ovid New address of my CGI Course. Silence is Evil (feel free to copy and distribute widely - note copyright text)	[reply]


Do you know where your variables are?
	PerlMonks