Stuff with the Perl Foundation. A couple of patches in the Perl core. A few CPAN modules. That about sums it up.
I just blew a nice chunk of time debugging the following problem:
use constant DEFAULT_ARGS => [qw/some data/];
...
unless (@_) {
$self->{args} = DEFAULT_ARGS;
}
Later on in my code, I had this:
my $args = $self->args;
while ( defined (my $curr_arg = shift @$args) ) {
# do something while blithely ignoring
# the havoc we're wreaking
}
See the bug? The two accidentally coupled lines of code were 214 lines apart and appeared to be unrelated. That was a bugger to track down. The fix I used was to simple clone those args when needed, but my longer-term fix is to not use constants. Use ReadOnly:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use Data::Dumper::Simple;
use ReadOnly;
use constant FOO => [qw/bar baz/];
my $data = FOO;
shift @$data;
print Dumper(FOO);
Readonly::Scalar my $foo => [qw/bar baz/];
$data = $foo;
shift @$data;
print Dumper($foo);
And the output:
$FOO = [
'baz'
];
Modification of a read-only value attempted at constant.pl line 15
Constant? (Score:1)
Der Eisbär ist mein Freund.
Great minds think alike. (Score:1)
Re:Great minds think alike. (Score:2)
And mediocre minds steal from great ones. Where do you think I learned about the Readonly package? :)
Re: (Score:1)
I don’t know if the real code did something significantly different, but to me that’s just an example against consuming when you merely need to iterate. Or more abstractly: “avoid side effects.” I can’t remember ever having run into this sort of issue.
I always cringe when I see people use
shifton@_– the only time I do that is when I really intend to modify the array, which boils down tomy $self = shift;and precious little else.Re: (Score:2)
I didn't show all of the code. There's a relatively common idiom of treating an array like a set of pairs, or an ordered hash:
In this case, this data needs to be represented as an array (hence my not using an ordered hash) except in this one odd corner case. Due to the nature of the code, this must always be the last step, so I didn't think destroying the array would be bad. I don't like it and it's definite
Re: (Score:1)
Ah – yeah, stepping through an array in steps of two is annoyingly complicated, and I admit to having used consumption to iterate in those cases as well:
And you’re right about C-style loops, I avoid them like the plague myself.
Hmm, what would be a good idiom to establish for the purpose… maybe this?
Cumbers
Constant versus ReadOnly (Score:1)
If you can define constants such that they will be compiled out, and in doing so make your code smaller, faster or simpler, then constants are a good thing.
use constant UNIX =
eval UNIX ? 'END_UNIX' : 'END_OTHER';
etc
etc
And so now you have smaller faster unix-specific code paths...
Re:Constant versus ReadOnly (Score:1)
Re:Constant versus ReadOnly (Score:1)
Use the :-)
ecodetags, Luke.