Re^3: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!?

However, in almost all cases a hash based solution is done is such away it has all the disadvantages of not using strict

Not even close.

How is the following remotely the same as a program without strict:

while (<>) {
   my ($k, $v) = split;
   $h{$k} = $v;
}

for my $k (keys(%h)) {
   ... $h{$k} ...
}
[download]

Comment on Re^3: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!? by educated_foo (Vicar) on Feb 09, 2012 at 12:21 UTC
It's not so hard: `package P; while (<>) { my ($k, $v) = split; $$k = $v; } for my $k (keys(%P::)) { ... $$k ... }` [download]	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!? by moritz (Cardinal) on Feb 09, 2012 at 12:51 UTC
... and the maintenance programmer who adds one or two features later will think you for occasionally, silently overwriting a few of his our-variables. Perl 6 - second systems done right	[reply]
Re^6: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!? by educated_foo (Vicar) on Feb 09, 2012 at 13:04 UTC
In package P? I would never write real code this way, but ikegami's post was deliberately, absurdly clueless.	[reply]
Re^5: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Feb 09, 2012 at 22:25 UTC
It's not so hard Really? I don't see how the code you posted shows that the code I posted suffers from the same problems that strict refs is suppose to fix. Am I missing something? In fact, your code actually reinforces my point. `our $x = 123;` affects your code but not mine, so hashes are NOT just as bad as symbolic refs.	[reply] [d/l]