Re^3: Common Perl Pitfalls

Considering that Joe_'s example uses the handle INPUTFILE, I don't have any problems with the implication, and I really don't see the need to come up with the snobby term correct idiom. (You consider a piece of code with error handling to be correct idiom? You're fired).

I really like the second one, thanks. Not for production use, of course. :)

Why not? It's not significant different from your correct idiom. It misses error handling (but then, so does your correct idiom), but that's easily handled: just add a // die "slurp: $!";.

Comment on Re^3: Common Perl Pitfalls Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Common Perl Pitfalls by dwalin (Monk) on Apr 10, 2012 at 23:50 UTC
Considering that Joe_'s example uses a handle and your last two use filename, it could be confusing for a novice. Why I wouldn't use the second example in production? Readability. Not everybody is familiar with intimate relationship between @ARGV and <>, and this solution doesn't really give any advantage over the common one. P.S. As for your show-off harshness, I care less for anti-snobs than I do for snobs. You didn't hire me, you have no authority to fire me. Have a good day sir. Regards, Alex.	[reply]
Re^5: Common Perl Pitfalls by JavaFan (Canon) on Apr 10, 2012 at 23:57 UTC
Not everybody Ah, but I don't have to write my production code for everybody. At best, only a hundred or so eyes will see my production code before it's obsolete or rewritten.	[reply]
Re^6: Common Perl Pitfalls by dwalin (Monk) on Apr 11, 2012 at 00:24 UTC
Well, I would consider myself lucky if I could afford writing production code knowing that only people smarter than me will ever see it. Not there yet, if ever. Regards, Alex.	[reply]
Re^7: Common Perl Pitfalls by JavaFan (Canon) on Apr 11, 2012 at 00:37 UTC


Welcome to the Monastery
	PerlMonks